We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 45 (2014), No. 3     24. Jan. 2014
Quintessence Int 45 (2014), No. 3  (24.01.2014)

Page 221-229, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a31208, PubMed:24570989


Is a grooved collar implant design superior to a machined design regarding bone level alteration? An observational pilot study
Bassetti, Renzo / Kaufmann, Regula / Ebinger, Andreas / Mericske-Stern, Regina / Enkling, Norbert
Objective: This retrospective observational pilot study examined differences in peri-implant bone level changes (ΔIBL) between two similar implant types differing only in the surface texture of the neck. The hypothesis tested was that ΔIBL would be greater with machined-neck implants than with groovedneck implants.
Method and Materials: 40 patients were enrolled; n = 20 implants with machined (group 1) and n = 20 implants with a rough, grooved neck (group 2), all placed in the posterior mandible. Radiographs were obtained after loading (at 3 to 9 months) and at 12 to 18 months after implant insertion. Case number calculation with respect to ΔIBL was conducted. Groups were compared using a Brunner-Langer model, the Mann-Whitney test, the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and linear model analysis.
Results: After the 12- to 18-month observation period, mean ΔIBL was −1.11 ± 0.92 mm in group 1 and −1.25 ± 1.23 mm in group 2. ΔIBL depended significantly on time (P < .001), but not on group. In both groups, mean marginal ΔIBL was significantly less than −1.5 mm. Only insertion depth had a significant influence on the amount of periimplant bone loss (P = .013). Case number estimate testing for a difference between group 1 and 2 with a power of 90% revealed a sample size per group of 1,032 subjects.
Conclusion: ΔIBL values indicated that both implant designs fulfilled implant success criteria, and the modification of implant neck texture had no significant influence on ΔIBL.

Keywords: implant collar, implant collar design, microgrooves