File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up

TitleInfluence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up
Authors
Keywordsbone regeneration
bone loss
bone resorption
cone beam computed tomography
bone remodeling
dental implant–abutment design
dental implants
Issue Date2016
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2016, v. 27, n. 9, p. 1055-1064 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdAim: To examine the influence of two different neck designs on facial bone crest dimensions in esthetic single implant sites after a 5-to-9-year follow-up analyzed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Sixty-one patients with an implant-borne single crown following early implant placement in the esthetic zone were enrolled. The test group consisted of a bone level (BL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophilic micro-rough surface combined with a platform-switching interface (PS) (n = 20). The control group comprised a soft tissue level (STL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophobic machined surface with a matching butt-joint interface (n = 41). Standardized clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were applied. The facial bone crest dimensions were assessed by CBCT. Results: Soft tissue parameters and pink esthetic scores yielded no significant differences between the two designs. Major differences were only observed at the implant shoulder level. The height of the facial bone crest for the BL design was located 0.2 mm above the implant shoulder level, whereas for the STL design, its location was 1.6 mm below. The width of the peri-implant saucer-like bone defect was reduced by 40% for the BL implant design. No differences were observed 2 mm below the shoulder level. Conclusions: The results of this comparative study suggest better crestal bone stability on the facial aspect of single implant sites in the esthetic zone for a BL design with a platform-switching concept when compared with STL implants with a butt-joint interface.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/236082
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 4.305
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChappuis, Vivianne-
dc.contributor.authorBornstein, Michael M.-
dc.contributor.authorBuser, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorBelser, Urs-
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-11T07:42:53Z-
dc.date.available2016-11-11T07:42:53Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2016, v. 27, n. 9, p. 1055-1064-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/236082-
dc.description.abstract© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdAim: To examine the influence of two different neck designs on facial bone crest dimensions in esthetic single implant sites after a 5-to-9-year follow-up analyzed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Sixty-one patients with an implant-borne single crown following early implant placement in the esthetic zone were enrolled. The test group consisted of a bone level (BL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophilic micro-rough surface combined with a platform-switching interface (PS) (n = 20). The control group comprised a soft tissue level (STL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophobic machined surface with a matching butt-joint interface (n = 41). Standardized clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were applied. The facial bone crest dimensions were assessed by CBCT. Results: Soft tissue parameters and pink esthetic scores yielded no significant differences between the two designs. Major differences were only observed at the implant shoulder level. The height of the facial bone crest for the BL design was located 0.2 mm above the implant shoulder level, whereas for the STL design, its location was 1.6 mm below. The width of the peri-implant saucer-like bone defect was reduced by 40% for the BL implant design. No differences were observed 2 mm below the shoulder level. Conclusions: The results of this comparative study suggest better crestal bone stability on the facial aspect of single implant sites in the esthetic zone for a BL design with a platform-switching concept when compared with STL implants with a butt-joint interface.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research-
dc.subjectbone regeneration-
dc.subjectbone loss-
dc.subjectbone resorption-
dc.subjectcone beam computed tomography-
dc.subjectbone remodeling-
dc.subjectdental implant–abutment design-
dc.subjectdental implants-
dc.titleInfluence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.12692-
dc.identifier.pmid26370904-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85027938718-
dc.identifier.hkuros271086-
dc.identifier.volume27-
dc.identifier.issue9-
dc.identifier.spage1055-
dc.identifier.epage1064-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000385708300001-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats