Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: retrospective 2-years case-control study

• José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores ^[1] ; Manuel Pérez-Fierro ^[1] ; Andrés Blanco-Carrión ^[2] ; Daniel Torres-Lagares ^[1] ; Lizett Castellanos-Cosano ^[1] ; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de Sevilla

     Universidad de Sevilla

     Sevilla, España

     
  2. [2] Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

     Santiago de Compostela, España

     
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 12, Nº. 1 (January), 2020, págs. 79-84
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up.

    Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients’ medical records. Statistical method: Spearman’s correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman’s post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05.

    No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05).

    With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use.