Version 1
: Received: 27 February 2024 / Approved: 28 February 2024 / Online: 28 February 2024 (11:31:18 CET)
How to cite:
Mensi, M.; Scotti, E.; Calza, S.; Salgarello, S.; Sordillo, A.; Zola, M.; Lops, D. Subcrestal versus Bone Level One Stage Implants: Early Bone and Soft Tissues Modification. One Year Randomized Clinical Trial.. Preprints2024, 2024021591. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1591.v1
Mensi, M.; Scotti, E.; Calza, S.; Salgarello, S.; Sordillo, A.; Zola, M.; Lops, D. Subcrestal versus Bone Level One Stage Implants: Early Bone and Soft Tissues Modification. One Year Randomized Clinical Trial.. Preprints 2024, 2024021591. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1591.v1
Mensi, M.; Scotti, E.; Calza, S.; Salgarello, S.; Sordillo, A.; Zola, M.; Lops, D. Subcrestal versus Bone Level One Stage Implants: Early Bone and Soft Tissues Modification. One Year Randomized Clinical Trial.. Preprints2024, 2024021591. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1591.v1
APA Style
Mensi, M., Scotti, E., Calza, S., Salgarello, S., Sordillo, A., Zola, M., & Lops, D. (2024). Subcrestal versus Bone Level One Stage Implants: Early Bone and Soft Tissues Modification. One Year Randomized Clinical Trial.. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1591.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Mensi, M., Matteo Zola and Diego Lops. 2024 "Subcrestal versus Bone Level One Stage Implants: Early Bone and Soft Tissues Modification. One Year Randomized Clinical Trial." Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1591.v1
Abstract
Background: One challenge in implant dentistry is to reduce marginal bone resorption to avoid long-term esthetic and biological complications. Sub-gingival implant placement has been suggested as a suitable strategy.
Methods: 38 healthy patients were enrolled to receive bone level (BL – Control group) or 2 mm sub-crestal (SC - Test group) conical connection, platform-switched implants. An immediate tissue level abutment was used in the Test group by following a One Time Abutment (OTA) restorative procedure. Marginal Bone Modification (MBM) was calcu-latied on standardized radiographs at surgery (T0), loading (T1), and 6 months (T2) and 12 months after loading (T3), and cathegorised in Bone Loss (BL) if the resorption occurred below the implant neck and Bone Remodeling (BR) if above. Pocket probing depth (PPD), Bleeding on probing (BoP) and Plaque Index (PI) were also collected.
Results: The mean MBM in the test group after 12 months was 0.61mm, compared to 0.52mm in the control group. However, no BL was observed in the test group, as the MBM completely occurred above the implant neck as BR, whilst in the control group MBM corresponded in total to BL. The average PPD was 2.38mm in the test group and 3.04mm in the control group after 12 months, BoP 50% and 43%, PI 33% and 19.44% respectively.
Conclusions: Sub-crestal conical connection, platform-switched implants could be a suitable clinical choice to avoid BL with exposure of the treated implants surfaces.
Keywords
Sub-crestal implants, bone loss, one time abutment, conical connection, mucosal tunnel depth
Subject
Medicine and Pharmacology, Dentistry and Oral Surgery
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
,
,
