Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Clinical Oral Implants Research, 9(32), p. 1127-1141, 2021

DOI: 10.1111/clr.13812

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Hard and soft tissue healing around implants with a modified implant neck configuration: An experimental in vivo preclinical investigation

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesEvaluate the dimensions and morphology of peri‐implant tissues around a modified dental implant designed with tissue level connection and a convergent transmucosal neck, when compared with a conventional bone level implant connected to a cylindrical machined titanium abutment.Material and methodsEight experimental animals were used for this in vivo investigation, in whom 16 test and 16 control implants were placed following a random allocation sequence. The following histological outcomes at 4 and 12 weeks were evaluated: morphology of peri‐implant tissues, the soft tissue height and thickness, the horizontal and vertical bone remodeling, and the bone to implant contact (BIC).ResultsIn both early (4 weeks) and late (12 weeks) healing times, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control implants, with respect to the overall height and thickness of the peri‐implant hard and soft tissues. There was a tendency toward a more coronal free gingival margin (I‐FGM) at the buccal aspect of test when compared to control implants (at 4 weeks, difference of 0.97 mm (p = .572) and 0.30 mm (p = 1.000) at 12 weeks). Similarly, there was a tendency toward a more coronal position of the first bone to implant contact (I‐B) at the buccal aspect of test as compared to control implants (1.08 mm (p = 0.174) at 4 weeks and 0.83 mm (p = 0.724) at 12 weeks).ConclusionsHard and soft tissue healing occurred at both implant types with no statistically significant differences. Test implants tended to present a more coronal gingival margin (FGM) and first bone to implant contact (B).