The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS
This highly regarded, frequently cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy, compiles research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, and new developments in reconstructive dentistry and implant techniques. Regular features include “Current Issues Forum,” which presents opinions of invited experts on controversial issues, and “Literature Review,” which keeps readers informed about implant-related publications.
Santiago J. Caram, DDS, MS/Guy Huynh-Ba, DDS, MS/John D. Schoolfield, MS/Archie A. Jones, DDS/David L. Cochran, DDS, MS, PhD, MMsci/Urs C. Belser, DMD, Dr Med Dent
Purpose: The purpose of this experimental study was to analyze radiographically in a dog model how different implant-abutment interface configurations influence alveolar crestal bone changes.
Materials and Methods: Six different experimental implant-abutment connections were evaluated in six mixed-breed dogs. The following parameters were tested: absence of microgap, microgap proximal to bone crest, and microgap distant from bone crest. In addition, two different cervical abutment profiles, one straight and one featuring a supracrestal concavity, were evaluated. Implants were based on a cylindrical full-body screw design and made from cold-worked grade IV commercially pure titanium. The diameter (at thread tips) measured 4.1 mm, whereas the inner diameter was 3.5 mm. Standardized periapical digital radiographs were obtained for comparative analysis at baseline and at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 months after implant placement. Radiographs were randomized and calibrated for linear measurements. For statistical analysis, mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance was used.
Results: All implants integrated successfully and remained stable during the entire period of the study. Radiographically, when comparing groups with straight profiles, crestal bone remodeling in group C (one-piece design) was significantly less than in group A (matching diameters) and B (nonmatching diameters). In fact, implant group C showed the least crestal bone remodeling of all groups. When comparing groups with a concave profile but different microgap configurations, all three designs demonstrated bone loss with no significant differences among the three groups.
Conclusion: A nonsubmerged one-piece implant design demonstrated the least amount of bone remodeling of all groups. Implant-abutment connections with a concave profile established crestal bone levels immediately apical to the concavity regardless of the microgap variable. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1114–1122. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3068