COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Bone Remodeling Around Implants with External Hexagon and Morse-Taper Connections: A Randomized, Controlled, Split-Mouth, Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical, radiographic, microbiologic, and biomechanical parameters related to bone remodeling around implants with external hexagon (EH) and Morse-taper (MT) connections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve totally edentulous patients received four custom-made implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible. Two of those implants had the same macroscopic design, but different prosthetic connections. All patients received an immediate implant-supported prosthesis. Clinical parameters (periimplant probing pocket depth (PPD), modified gingival index (mGI), and mucosal thickness (MTh)) were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. The distance between the top of the implant and the first bone-to-implant contact (IT-FBIC) was evaluated on standardized digital peri-apical radiographs acquired at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Samples of the subgingival microbiota were collected 1, 3, and 6 months after implant loading and used for the quantification of Tanerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggragatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Further, 36 computerized-tomography based finite element (FE) models were accomplished, simulating each patient under three loading conditions.

RESULTS: The evaluated clinical parameters were equal for EH and MT implants. Mean IT-FBIC was significantly different between the tested connections (1.17 ± 0.44 mm for EH, and 0.17 ± 0.54 mm for MT, considering all evaluated time periods). No significant microbiological differences could be observed between tested connections. FE analysis showed a significantly higher peak of equivalent (EQV) strain (p = 0.005) for EH (mean 3,438.65 µε) compared to MT (mean 840.98 µε) connection.

CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic periimplant bone loss depends on the implant connection type. MT connections showed less periimplant bone loss, compared to EH connections.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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