6533b7d4fe1ef96bd12628bc

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study

Sonia Gomar-vercherHilario Pellicer-choverDavid Peñarrocha-oltraMiguel Peñarrocha-diagoRubén Agustín-panaderoMaría Peñarrocha-diago

subject

AdultMaleTime FactorsOral surgeryDentistryOdontología02 engineering and technologyPeri implant boneOsseointegration03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineOsseointegrationStatistical significanceMedicineHumansProspective StudiesProspective cohort studyGeneral DentistryAgedbusiness.industryResearchDental Implantation Endosseous030206 dentistryMiddle Aged021001 nanoscience & nanotechnology:CIENCIAS MÉDICAS [UNESCO]Ciencias de la saludImplant placementOtorhinolaryngologyUNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICASStandard protocolSurgeryFemaleImplantOral Surgery0210 nano-technologybusinessFollow-Up Studies

description

Background To assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up. Material and Methods Twenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05). Results Twenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were nonsmokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, tooth extraction, dental implants, single-tooth, crestal bone, placement level.

http://hdl.handle.net/10550/52007