Search

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of 6 mm implants in various indications with a micro-rough surface after 4.6-18.2 years in function and to assess key factors associated with implant survival, success, and biologic/technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-five patients with seventy-four 6 mm implants placed from 2000 to 2013 attended the re-examination assessing well-established clinical and radiographic parameters, biologic and prosthetic complications, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Five implants were lost after a mean follow-up period of 9.1 years resulting in a survival rate of 93.2%. All losses occurred in free-end situations in the mandible. Smoking habit significantly reduced implant survival (hazard ratio 36.25). Two implants exhibited a history of peri-implantitis, and one implant showed progressive marginal bone loss (MBL) resulting in a success rate of 89.2%. The mean MBL amounted to 0.029 mm. Increased MBL was found for implants placed in the maxilla (0.057 mm) and for implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm (0.043 mm). Soft tissue thickness (1.39 mm) and width of keratinized mucosa (1.91 mm) had no effect on MBL. Patient-reported outcome measures showed high satisfaction (mean VAS scores 88%) and high quality of life (mean OHIP-G14 score 2.2). CONCLUSION The present study demonstrated survival and success rates of 93.2% and 89.2% for 6 mm implants used in various indications. A factor leading to higher implant failure was smoking, whereas modulating factors increasing annual MBL included implants placed in the maxilla and implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm compared to 4.8 mm.

AIM To examine the influence of two different neck designs on facial bone crest dimensions in esthetic single implant sites after a 5-to-9-year follow-up analyzed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty-one patients with an implant-borne single crown following early implant placement in the esthetic zone were enrolled. The test group consisted of a bone level (BL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophilic micro-rough surface combined with a platform-switching interface (PS) (n = 20). The control group comprised a soft tissue level (STL) neck design exhibiting a hydrophobic machined surface with a matching butt-joint interface (n = 41). Standardized clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were applied. The facial bone crest dimensions were assessed by CBCT. RESULTS Soft tissue parameters and pink esthetic scores yielded no significant differences between the two designs. Major differences were only observed at the implant shoulder level. The height of the facial bone crest for the BL design was located 0.2 mm above the implant shoulder level, whereas for the STL design, its location was 1.6 mm below. The width of the peri-implant saucer-like bone defect was reduced by 40% for the BL implant design. No differences were observed 2 mm below the shoulder level. CONCLUSIONS The results of this comparative study suggest better crestal bone stability on the facial aspect of single implant sites in the esthetic zone for a BL design with a platform-switching concept when compared with STL implants with a butt-joint interface.