Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient

Jolanta Szymańska 1  ,  
Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Lublin
Individual Dental Practice “Dentistry Implantology Piotr Szpak”, Białystok
JPCCR 2017;11(1):30–34
One of the criteria of implant therapy success is marginal bone loss. The objective of the study was to assess the correlation between peri-implant marginal bone loss and implant-abutment connection systems used in the same patient, as well as other specific characteristics of implant treatment. The initial research hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants with different implant-abutment connection systems placed in the same patient.

Material and methods:
Marginal bone loss was assessed around implants with two different types of implant-abutment connection: with conical (Type I) and with internal hexagonal (Type II) in the same patient. The study included 28 patients aged 37–66 years. The evaluation of marginal bone loss in the studied patient groups was made on the basis of orthopantomographic radiographs.

Marginal bone loss around Type I implants was 0.112 mm/month before loading with prosthetic restorations, and 0.010 mm/month after loading, while for Type II implants it reached, respectively 0.123 mm/month and 0.030 mm/month. Marginal bone loss after loading with prosthetic restorations was 11 times lower for Type I implants and 4 times lower for Type II implants.

Implants with conical implant-abutment connection are significantly more favourable to osseointegration than those with internal hexagonal connection. As marginal bone loss is faster before loading implants with prosthetic restorations than after loading, it is advisable to consider early loading if the necessary clinical conditions are met.

Jolanta Szymańska   
Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Karmelicka 7, 20-018 Lublin, Poland
1. Papaspyridakos P, Chen JC, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91(3): 242–248.
2. Rasouli Ghahroudi AAR, Talaeepour AR, Mesgarzadeh A Rokn AR, Khorsand A, Mesgarzadeh NN, Kharazi Fard MJ. Radiographic vertical bone loss evaluation around dental implants following one year of functional loading. J Dent Teheran Univ Med Sci. 2010; 7(2): 89–97.
3. Hardin J, Hilbe J. Generalized Estimating Equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2003.
4. Liang K-Y, Zeger S. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73(1): 13–22.
5. Bratu EA, Olimpiu K, Radu S. Study of bone level around osseointegrated dental implants. MIS News 2007; 19(7): 2–3.
6. Bratu EA, Tandlich M, Shapira L. A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20: 827–832.
7. Degidi M, Piatelli A, Shibli JA, Perrotti V, Iezzi G. Bone formation around a dental implant with the platform switching and another with a TissueCare Connection. A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation in man. Titanium 2009; 1(1): 10–17.
8. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D. AICRG, Part II: Crestal bone loss associated with the ANKYLOS implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol. 2004; 30(3): 134–143.
9. Kukuła J, Sidorowicz K, Sokalski J. The evaluation of the marginal bone loss in traditional and flapless approach of Osteoplant Hex implants. Implantoprotetyka 2007; 26–27(1–2): 15–19.
10. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bell M, Bosco AF, de Melo LG, Richter EJ. Influence of microgap location and configuration on the peri-implant bone morphology in submerged implants. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19(11): 1141–1447.
11. Morris HF, Winkler S, Ochi S, Kanaan A. A new implant designed to maximize contact with trabecular bone: survival to 18 months. J Oral Implantol. 2001; 27(4): 164–173.
12. Min-Su B, Dong-Seok S, Mi-Ra A. Hyun-Woo L, Heui-Seung J, Im-Hee S. Retrospective multicenter evaluation of tapered implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface at 1 to 4 years of function. Implant Dent. 2011; 20(4): 280–284.
13. Tandlich M, Reizman P, Shapira L. The incidence of the marginal bone loss and failure rate of MIS internal hex implants bearing different types of prosthesis. MIS News 2006; 17: 2–3.