ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in terms of the marginal bone level (MBL) around implants with either an internal conical or an internal hexagonal implant-prosthesis connection. A randomized clinical trial included patients in need of a single implant-supported restoration. The implant-prosthesis connection was either internal conical or internal hexagonal while maintaining the same type of implant macro- and microarchitecture. Clinical and radiographical variables were registered up to 12 months of follow-up, including MBL. A total of 30 patients were included in the study. The main outcome variable, MBL 12 months after prosthesis delivery, was statistically different in both groups: -0.25 (0.12) vs. -0.70 (0.43) (conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.033). Differences were also observed at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits as well as for the MBL change from prosthesis delivery to the 12-month follow-up (-0.15 (0.13) vs. -0.56 (0.44); conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.023). Correlations between MBL around the implants and radiographic measurements on the adjacent teeth, buccal bone to implant, tissue thickness or keratinized tissue were not significant neither globally nor when analyzed independently by group. In view of such results, it can be concluded that single-unit restorations with internal hexagonal-connection implants induce higher marginal bone loss after 12 months of follow-up from prosthesis delivery than internal conical-connection implants.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the marginal bone level around implants with a thin multi-phosphonate coated surface after either an early or conventional loading protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized pilot clinical trial was conducted. Dental impressions were obtained after either 4 (test) or 8 weeks (control) and single crowns screwed-in 2 weeks later. Several variables were evaluated including radiographical marginal bone level (MBL), patient's level variables, and those related to the restoration and surrounding tissues. These data were obtained at several time points up to a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included in the study, 18 assigned to the test group. No differences at implant placement were detected for tissue thickness, keratinized mucosa, nor any other clinical or radiological variable. At the time of impressions, tissue was thinner in the test group (2.30 (0.46) versus 2.78 (0.66) mm, test versus control, respectively; p = .012) so shorter abutments were used in this group. Regardless, no significant changes in marginal bone level were detected neither within group along time nor between groups. The average MBL at the 1-year follow-up was -0.15 (0.32) versus -0.22 (0.37) (p = .443) (test versus control, respectively). None of the clinical or radiological variables evaluated had a determinant influence on the MBL at any visit nor group. CONCLUSION: The use of implants with a multi-phosphonate coated surface for early loading offers successful radiographical outcomes 1 year after loading. MBL over time was not affected by taking the impressions 4 or 8 weeks after implant placement and loading them 2 weeks later.
