Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year

Young Kyu Shin, Chong Hyun Han, Seong Joo Heo, Sunjai Kim, Heoung Jae Chun

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

127 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of macro- and microstructure of the implant surface at the marginal bone level after functional loading. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. The first group received 35 implants with a machined neck (Ankylos); the second group, 34 implants with a rough-surfaced neck (Stage 1); and the third, 38 implants with a rough-surfaced neck with microthreads (Oneplant). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of marginal bone change of each tested group at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups and 1-way ANOVA was also used to compare the bone loss of each time interval within the same implant group (P < .05). Results: At 12 months, significant differences were noted in the amount of alveolar bone loss recorded for the 3 groups (P < .05). The group with the rough-surfaced microthreaded neck had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.18 ± 0.16 mm; the group with the rough-surfaced neck, 0.76 ± 0.21 mm; and the group with the machined neck, 1.32 ± 0.27 mm. In the rough-surfaced group and the rough-surfaced microthreaded group, no statistically significant changes were observed after 3 months, whereas the machined-surface group showed significant bone loss for every interval (P < .05). Discussion: To minimize marginal bone loss, in addition to the use of a rough surface at the marginal bone level, a macroscopic modification such as the addition of microthreads could be recommended. A rough surface and microthreads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading in comparison to the machined neck design. Conclusion: A rough surface with microthreads at the implant neck was the most effective design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)789-794
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
Volume21
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Neck
Bone and Bones
Analysis of Variance
Alveolar Bone Loss

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{a139b1485d724d49800b8ab56070c63e,
title = "Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the influence of macro- and microstructure of the implant surface at the marginal bone level after functional loading. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. The first group received 35 implants with a machined neck (Ankylos); the second group, 34 implants with a rough-surfaced neck (Stage 1); and the third, 38 implants with a rough-surfaced neck with microthreads (Oneplant). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of marginal bone change of each tested group at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups and 1-way ANOVA was also used to compare the bone loss of each time interval within the same implant group (P < .05). Results: At 12 months, significant differences were noted in the amount of alveolar bone loss recorded for the 3 groups (P < .05). The group with the rough-surfaced microthreaded neck had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.18 ± 0.16 mm; the group with the rough-surfaced neck, 0.76 ± 0.21 mm; and the group with the machined neck, 1.32 ± 0.27 mm. In the rough-surfaced group and the rough-surfaced microthreaded group, no statistically significant changes were observed after 3 months, whereas the machined-surface group showed significant bone loss for every interval (P < .05). Discussion: To minimize marginal bone loss, in addition to the use of a rough surface at the marginal bone level, a macroscopic modification such as the addition of microthreads could be recommended. A rough surface and microthreads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading in comparison to the machined neck design. Conclusion: A rough surface with microthreads at the implant neck was the most effective design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.",
author = "Shin, {Young Kyu} and Han, {Chong Hyun} and Heo, {Seong Joo} and Sunjai Kim and Chun, {Heoung Jae}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "789--794",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "5",

}

Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. / Shin, Young Kyu; Han, Chong Hyun; Heo, Seong Joo; Kim, Sunjai; Chun, Heoung Jae.

In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Vol. 21, No. 5, 01.09.2006, p. 789-794.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year

AU - Shin, Young Kyu

AU - Han, Chong Hyun

AU - Heo, Seong Joo

AU - Kim, Sunjai

AU - Chun, Heoung Jae

PY - 2006/9/1

Y1 - 2006/9/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the influence of macro- and microstructure of the implant surface at the marginal bone level after functional loading. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. The first group received 35 implants with a machined neck (Ankylos); the second group, 34 implants with a rough-surfaced neck (Stage 1); and the third, 38 implants with a rough-surfaced neck with microthreads (Oneplant). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of marginal bone change of each tested group at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups and 1-way ANOVA was also used to compare the bone loss of each time interval within the same implant group (P < .05). Results: At 12 months, significant differences were noted in the amount of alveolar bone loss recorded for the 3 groups (P < .05). The group with the rough-surfaced microthreaded neck had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.18 ± 0.16 mm; the group with the rough-surfaced neck, 0.76 ± 0.21 mm; and the group with the machined neck, 1.32 ± 0.27 mm. In the rough-surfaced group and the rough-surfaced microthreaded group, no statistically significant changes were observed after 3 months, whereas the machined-surface group showed significant bone loss for every interval (P < .05). Discussion: To minimize marginal bone loss, in addition to the use of a rough surface at the marginal bone level, a macroscopic modification such as the addition of microthreads could be recommended. A rough surface and microthreads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading in comparison to the machined neck design. Conclusion: A rough surface with microthreads at the implant neck was the most effective design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the influence of macro- and microstructure of the implant surface at the marginal bone level after functional loading. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. The first group received 35 implants with a machined neck (Ankylos); the second group, 34 implants with a rough-surfaced neck (Stage 1); and the third, 38 implants with a rough-surfaced neck with microthreads (Oneplant). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, and 12 months postloading. Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of marginal bone change of each tested group at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 month follow-ups and 1-way ANOVA was also used to compare the bone loss of each time interval within the same implant group (P < .05). Results: At 12 months, significant differences were noted in the amount of alveolar bone loss recorded for the 3 groups (P < .05). The group with the rough-surfaced microthreaded neck had a mean crestal bone loss of 0.18 ± 0.16 mm; the group with the rough-surfaced neck, 0.76 ± 0.21 mm; and the group with the machined neck, 1.32 ± 0.27 mm. In the rough-surfaced group and the rough-surfaced microthreaded group, no statistically significant changes were observed after 3 months, whereas the machined-surface group showed significant bone loss for every interval (P < .05). Discussion: To minimize marginal bone loss, in addition to the use of a rough surface at the marginal bone level, a macroscopic modification such as the addition of microthreads could be recommended. A rough surface and microthreads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading in comparison to the machined neck design. Conclusion: A rough surface with microthreads at the implant neck was the most effective design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750556238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750556238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 789

EP - 794

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 5

ER -