We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Long-term results after subcrestal or crestal placement of delayed loaded implants.
Clinical Implant Dentistry and related Research 2015 Februrary
PURPOSE: Prevention of peri-implant bone loss is essential for achieving long-term implant success, but few studies have evaluated the impact of placement depth on long-term bone loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate outcomes for platform-shifted implants placed at different depths relative to the bone crest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mesial and distal shoulders of 228 delayed-loaded Ankylos® (Dentsply Implants Manufacturing GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) implants placed in 85 patients were divided retrospectively into two groups based on the implant shoulder position on the day of placement surgery as follows: subcrestal group A (n = 197; 0.5 mm or more below the crestal bone level) or crestal group B (n = 65; within 0.5 mm or less of the crestal bone level). The remaining sites (n = 194; more than 0.5 mm above the crestal bone level) were supracrestal and were excluded from this analysis. Mesial and distal bone loss was evaluated under 5× magnification and analyzed, along with Periotest values.
RESULTS: Mean Periotest values were -1.77 (±3.57) for Group A and -1.77 (±3.26) for Group B. For Group A, mean mesial (m) bone loss was 1.84 (±1.49 mm) and mean distal (d) bone loss was 1.73 (±1.31 mm). For Group B, the bone loss values were m: 1.41 (±1.65 mm) and d: 1.34 (±1.60 mm). No statistically significant differences were found for the Periotest values (p = .521) or bone level values for the two groups (m: p = .130; d: p = .153).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, subcrestal or crestal implant placement in combination with delayed loading was associated with similar initial implant stability and subsequent crestal bone loss.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mesial and distal shoulders of 228 delayed-loaded Ankylos® (Dentsply Implants Manufacturing GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) implants placed in 85 patients were divided retrospectively into two groups based on the implant shoulder position on the day of placement surgery as follows: subcrestal group A (n = 197; 0.5 mm or more below the crestal bone level) or crestal group B (n = 65; within 0.5 mm or less of the crestal bone level). The remaining sites (n = 194; more than 0.5 mm above the crestal bone level) were supracrestal and were excluded from this analysis. Mesial and distal bone loss was evaluated under 5× magnification and analyzed, along with Periotest values.
RESULTS: Mean Periotest values were -1.77 (±3.57) for Group A and -1.77 (±3.26) for Group B. For Group A, mean mesial (m) bone loss was 1.84 (±1.49 mm) and mean distal (d) bone loss was 1.73 (±1.31 mm). For Group B, the bone loss values were m: 1.41 (±1.65 mm) and d: 1.34 (±1.60 mm). No statistically significant differences were found for the Periotest values (p = .521) or bone level values for the two groups (m: p = .130; d: p = .153).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, subcrestal or crestal implant placement in combination with delayed loading was associated with similar initial implant stability and subsequent crestal bone loss.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app