Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Retrospective Clinical Study of Marginal Bone Level Changes with Two Different Screw-Implant Types: Comparison Between Tissue Level (TE) and Bone Level (BL) Implant

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the amount of marginal bone loss (MBL) in a bone-level and a soft-tissue-level implant system, both of which have similar intra-bony shape and surface composition. A subgroup analysis was done to compare the amount of MBL of each implant type in relation to the different vertical placement within the respective groups of implants.

Materials and Methods

Records of all patients who underwent implantation for replacement of teeth using comparable bone level (BL) and soft tissue level implants (TE) from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2009 were scrutinized. Initial depth of implant placement (IDIP) was measured for all implants. Marginal bone loss was measured in patients whose records were available at time point corresponding to 12, 24 and 36 months post insertion.

Results

Out of a total of 384 implants, 337 implants were included for study. The mean MBL for the BL implants were 0.3, 0.38, 0.48 and for TE implant were 0.6, 0.54 and 0.93 for time periods 12, 24 and 36 months respectively. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at time periods at 6–12 months, in later time periods, there was a slightly greater amount of MBL around TE implants as compared to BL implants (p < 0.001). When comparing the IDIP and MBL in the same implant type, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) positive correlation between the depth of implant placement and the amount of MBL, with deeper placed implants having more bone loss.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this retrospective cohort study design, one can conclude that BL implants had statistically significant lesser MBL as compared to TE in time periods above 12 months. Although the difference is statistically significant, the difference may not be clinically significant. The IDIP had an influence on the amount of MBL, with deeper placed implants and screw structure of the implant placed below the bone, having more MBL in the period of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR (1986) The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1:11–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH (2010) Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 81:1350–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones AA, Cochran DL (2006) Consequences of implant design. Dent Clin North Am 50:339–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL (2001) Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:559–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL (2001) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:475–485

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2001) Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 72:1372–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Nawas B, Kämmerer PW, Morbach T, Ophoven F, Wagner W (2001) Retrospective clinical evaluation of an internal tube-in-tube dental implant after 4 years, with special emphasis on peri-implant bone resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26:1309–1316

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL (2000) Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfeild J, Buser D, Hammerle CH, Cochran DL (2008) The influence of non matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 79:260–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Enkling N, Jöhren P, Klimberg V, Bayer S, Mericske-Stern R, Jepsen S (2011) Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1185–1192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Canullo L, Quaranta A, Teles RP (2010) The microbiota associated with implants restored with platform switching: a preliminary report. J Periodontol 81:403–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weng D, Nagata MJH, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LGN, Richter EJ (2008) Influence of microgap location and configuration on the periimplant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:1141–1147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Shibli JA, Novaes AB, Piatelli A, Iezzi G (2011) Equicrestal and subcrestal dental implants: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of nine retrieved human implants. J Periodontol 82:708–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Novaes AB Jr, Barros RR, Mugila VA, Borges GJ (2009) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on papilla formation and crestal resorption: a clinical and radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol 35:18–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barros RR, Novaes AB Jr, Mugila VA, Iezzi G, Piattelli A (2010) Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on peri-implant bone remodeling of adjacent and immediately loaded Morse cone connection implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:371–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zechner W, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Watzek G (2003) Rotational panoramic versus intraoral rectangular radiographs for evaluation of peri-implant bone loss in the anterior atrophic mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:873–878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kullman L, Al-Asfour A, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L (2007) Comparison of radiographic bone heights assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Nawas B, Brägger U, Meijer HJ, Naert I, Persson R, Perucchi A, Quirynen A, Raghoebar GM, Reichert TE, Romeo E, Santing HJ, Schimmel M, Storelli S, Bruggenkate CT, Vandekerckhove B, Wagner W, Wismeijer D, Müller F (2012) A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of titanium-13zirconium versus titanium Grade IV small-diameter bone level implants in edentulous mandibles—results from a 1-year observation period. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res 14:896–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS (2006) Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling post restorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2006:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  20. Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S (2010) Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buser D, Wittneben J, Bornstein MM, Grütter L, Chappuis V, Belser UC (2011) Stability of contour augmentation and esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns in the esthetic zone: 3-year results of a prospective study with early implant placement postextraction. J Periodontol 82:342–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wennström JL, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J (2005) Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 32:567–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D (2004) AICRG, Part II: crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol 30:134–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M (2007) Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 18:581–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Canay S, Akca K (2009) Biomechanical aspects of bone-level diameter shifting at implant–abutment interface. Implant Dent 18:239–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cocchetto R, Traini T, Caddeo F, Celletti R (2010) Evaluation of hard tissue response around wider platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 30:163–171

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R (2008) Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 28:347–355

    Google Scholar 

  28. Buser D, von Arx T (2000) Surgical procedures in partially edentulous patients with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 11(Suppl 1):83–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pontes AEF, Ribeiro FS, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, Marcantonio E (2008) Biologic width changes around loaded implants inserted in different levels in relation to crestal bone: histometric evaluation in canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:483–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pontes AEF, Ribeiro FS, da Silva VC, Margonar R, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, Marcantonio E (2008) Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. J Periodontol 79:486–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Todescan FF, Pustiglioni FE, Imbronito AV, Albrektsson T, Gioso M (2002) Influence of the microgap in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:467–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina R, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL (2006) Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant–abutment interface. J Dent Res 85:473–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Callan DP, Cobb CM, Williams KB (2005) DNA probe identification of bacteria colonizing internal surfaces of the implant–abutment interface: a preliminary study. J Periodontol 76:115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D (1993) Bacterial colonization of the internal part of the two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 4:158–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the ITI Research Scholarship grant by the ITI-Foundation to the corresponding author.

Conflict of interest

The senior authors Prof Wagner und Prof Al-Nawas declare that they were involved in education and scientific lectures and get research grants by the Straumann company but have no conflicts of interest in this study. All other authors have no conflict of interest in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre of Johannes Gutenberg University, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Vinay V. Kumar, Keyvan Sagheb, Peer W. Kämmerer, Bilal Al-Nawas & Wilfried Wagner

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, M.R. Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, India

    Vinay V. Kumar

Authors
  1. Vinay V. Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keyvan Sagheb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peer W. Kämmerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bilal Al-Nawas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wilfried Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay V. Kumar.

Additional information

The data from this study is part of the dissertation work submitted to Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz as part of doctoral thesis of Dr. Vinay V. Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, V.V., Sagheb, K., Kämmerer, P.W. et al. Retrospective Clinical Study of Marginal Bone Level Changes with Two Different Screw-Implant Types: Comparison Between Tissue Level (TE) and Bone Level (BL) Implant. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 13, 259–266 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-013-0532-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-013-0532-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation