Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Influence of the implant-abutment connection on the ratio between height and thickness of tissues at the buccal zenith: a randomized controlled trial on 188 implants placed in 104 patients.

Tytuł:
Influence of the implant-abutment connection on the ratio between height and thickness of tissues at the buccal zenith: a randomized controlled trial on 188 implants placed in 104 patients.
Autorzy:
Farronato D; Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. .
Pasini PM; Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Manfredini M; Private Practice, corso Europa 10, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Scognamiglio C; Private Practice, corso della Vittoria 744, 21042 Caronno Pertusella, Varese, Italy.
Orsina AA; Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Farronato M; Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Milan, Italy.
Źródło:
BMC oral health [BMC Oral Health] 2020 Feb 17; Vol. 20 (1), pp. 53. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Feb 17.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
MeSH Terms:
Dental Abutments*
Dental Implant-Abutment Design*
Dental Implants*
Dental Implantation, Endosseous/*methods
Crowns ; Humans ; Immediate Dental Implant Loading ; Italy ; Republic of Korea ; Treatment Outcome
References:
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Mar;121(3):398-403.e3. (PMID: 30477924)
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):9-17. (PMID: 16515092)
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 Jul-Aug;34(4):559-63. (PMID: 25006773)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:26-8. (PMID: 15635943)
J Periodontol. 2017 Sep;88(9):876-886. (PMID: 28517971)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Mar;28(3):272-282. (PMID: 26913807)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Feb;27(2):167-73. (PMID: 25678247)
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Dec;80(6):641. (PMID: 9830066)
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002 May;31(3):176-81. (PMID: 12058265)
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jul 24;2018:2908484. (PMID: 30140692)
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102. (PMID: 28000278)
J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Feb;134(2):220-5. (PMID: 12636127)
Dent J (Basel). 2019 Apr 02;7(2):. (PMID: 30987026)
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Jul;46(7):1139-1146. (PMID: 29802060)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Apr;26(4):e42-e46. (PMID: 24450805)
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018 Sep;39(8):522-529; quiz 530. (PMID: 30188147)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jul/Aug;32(4):919-926. (PMID: 28708924)
Ann Periodontol. 2000 Dec;5(1):119-28. (PMID: 11885170)
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;28(1):43-55. (PMID: 26358411)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):e9-e24. (PMID: 28095526)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Jan 31;34(2):499–505. (PMID: 30703184)
Periodontol 2000. 2015 Jun;68(1):122-34. (PMID: 25867983)
J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S204-S213. (PMID: 29926948)
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013 Apr;101(4):1158-64. (PMID: 23065706)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:186-215. (PMID: 24660198)
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005 Apr;25(2):113-9. (PMID: 15839587)
Eur J Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):148-154. (PMID: 27011755)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Apr;28(4):495-501. (PMID: 26988739)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jan;23(1):90-4. (PMID: 21492239)
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):73-83. (PMID: 28000281)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997 Jun;8(3):161-72. (PMID: 9586460)
J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Jan;38(1):86-94. (PMID: 21062338)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61. (PMID: 15635945)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jul;30(7):649-659. (PMID: 31033035)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Jun;20(3):285-293. (PMID: 29575589)
Periodontol 2000. 2018 Jun;77(1):176-196. (PMID: 29484714)
Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Nov;83:153-160. (PMID: 28780384)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Aug;30(8):745-759. (PMID: 31099929)
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 May-Jun;34(3):323-31. (PMID: 24804283)
Eur J Esthet Dent. 2006 Autumn;1(3):208-14. (PMID: 19655487)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):820-5. (PMID: 21198897)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29(10):1007-1015. (PMID: 30246409)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Aesthetics; Conical implant–abutment connection; Dental implants; Platform switching; Tissue height; Tissue thickness
Molecular Sequence:
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04160689
Substance Nomenclature:
0 (Dental Implants)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20200219 Date Completed: 20200824 Latest Revision: 20200824
Update Code:
20240105
PubMed Central ID:
PMC7027242
DOI:
10.1186/s12903-020-1037-5
PMID:
32066431
Czasopismo naukowe
Background: To compare tissue response to two implant systems, featuring internal hexed connections with different designs.
Methods: Patients enrolled in this randomized controlled trial were assigned to two groups. In Group 1, patients were treated with implants with a 5° conical internal hexed connection (Anyridge®, MegaGen, South Korea). In Group 2, patients were treated with implants with an internal hexed connection (Core®, Kristal, Italy). After implant placement and a provisionalisation period of 12 months, impressions were taken, stone casts were poured and digitised with a desktop scanner (D700®, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). In a digital environment, for each fixture, two values were collected at the buccal zenith: the height of the peri-implant mucosa (mucosal height; MH), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the implant analogue to the upper gingival margin of the supra-implant tissue; and the width of the peri-implant mucosa (mucosal thickness; MT), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the analogue to the external mucosa point perpendicular to the implant major axis. The mean and standard deviation for MH and MT, as well as their ratios, were calculated for each group; the sectors in which the implants were placed were also considered. Finally, correlation between MH, MT, connection type and sector was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, with significance level set at 0.05, and a confidence interval (CI) set at 95%.
Results: Data deriving from 188 implants placed in 104 patients were evaluated. The mean MH values were 3.32 (± 0.12) and 2.70 (± 0.16) mm for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean MT values were 4.37 (± 0.16) and 3.93 (± 0.18) mm for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Group 1 showed higher MH and MT values and a better ratio (1.50 ± 0.88) than Group 2 (1.81 ± 1.20). The MH, MT and MH/MT ratio were significantly influenced both by sector (p = 0.015) and group (p = 0.047).
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, the 5° connection implants supported a more extended tissue height and thickness at the buccal zenith, and a better ratio between them.
Trial Registration: This study was retrospectively registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, with number NCT04160689, dated 13/11/2019.

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies