6533b871fe1ef96bd12d24bf

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study

Andrés Blanco-carriónGuillermo Machuca-portilloManuel Pérez-fierroLizett Castellanos-cosanoDaniel Torres-lagaresJosé-ramón Corcuera-flores

subject

0303 health sciencesProsthetic DentistryTobacco useClinical variablesPost hocbusiness.industryRadiographyResearchDentistry030206 dentistry:CIENCIAS MÉDICAS [UNESCO]03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineStatistical significanceUNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICASMedicineImplantImplant loadingbusinessGeneral Dentistry030304 developmental biology

description

Background The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up. Material and Methods Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05. Results No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05). Conclusions With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson's index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs.

https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.56422