LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 26 , Issue 5
September/October 2011

Pages 941–946


Influence of Microgap Location and Configuration on Radiographic Bone Loss Around Submerged Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs

Dietmar Weng, DDS, Dr Med Dent/Maria José Hitomi Nagata, DDS, MSc, PhD/Alvaro Francisco Bosco, DDS, MSc, PhD/Luiz Gustavo Nascimento de Melo, DDS, MSc, PhD


PMID: 22010074

Purpose: The vertical location of the implant-abutment connection influences the subsequent reaction of the peri-implant bone. It is not known, however, whether any additional influence is exerted by different microgap configurations. Therefore, the radiographic bone reactions of two different implant systems were monitored for 6 months. Materials and Methods: In eight mongrel dogs, two implants with an internal Morse-taper connection (INT group) were placed on one side of the mandible; the contralateral side received two implants with an external-hex connection (EXT group). On each side, one implant was aligned at the bone level (equicrestal) and the second implant was placed 1.5 mm subcrestal. Healing abutments were placed 3 months after submerged healing, and the implants were maintained for another 3 months without prosthetic loading. At implant placement and after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, standardized radiographs were obtained, and peri-implant bone levels were measured with regard to microgap location and evaluated statistically. Results: All implants osseointegrated clinically and radiographically. The overall mean bone loss was 0.68 ± 0.59 mm in the equicrestal INT group, 1.32 ± 0.49 mm in the equicrestal EXT group, 0.76 ± 0.49 mm in the subcrestal INT group, and 1.88 ± 0.81 mm in the subcrestal EXT group. The differences between the INT and EXT groups were statistically significant (paired t tests). The first significant differences between the internal and external groups were seen at month 1 in the subcrestal groups and at 3 months in the equicrestal groups. Bone loss was most pronounced in the subcrestal EXT group. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, different microgap configurations can cause different amounts of bone loss, even before prosthetic loading. Subcrestal placement of a butt-joint microgap design may lead to more pronounced radiographic bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:941–946

Key words: bone morphology, crestal implant placement, implant-abutment microgap, radiographic study, subcrestal placement


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help