NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study

Repositori DSpace/Manakin

IMPORTANT: Aquest repositori està en una versió antiga des del 3/12/2023. La nova instal.lació está en https://roderic.uv.es/

Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study

Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

dc.contributor.author Pellicer Chover, Hilario es
dc.contributor.author Peñarrocha Diago, María es
dc.contributor.author Peñarrocha Oltra, David es
dc.contributor.author Gomar Vercher, Sonia es
dc.contributor.author Agustín Panadero, Rubén es
dc.contributor.author Peñarrocha Diago, Miguel es
dc.date.accessioned 2016-04-06T12:31:11Z
dc.date.available 2016-04-06T12:31:11Z
dc.date.issued 2016 es
dc.identifier.citation Pellicer Chover, Hilario ; Peñarrocha Diago, María ; Peñarrocha Oltra, David ; Gomar Vercher, Sonia ; Agustín Panadero, Rubén ; Peñarrocha Diago, Miguel. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study. En: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed inglesa, 2016, Vol. 21, No. 1: 103- es
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10550/52007
dc.description.abstract Background: To assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up. Material and Methods: Twenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05). Results: Twenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were non-smokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up en_US
dc.relation es
dc.subject Odontología es
dc.subject Ciencias de la salud es
dc.title Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: a prospective comparative study es
dc.type journal article es_ES
dc.subject.unesco UNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICAS es
dc.type.hasVersion VoR es_ES

Visualització       (3.375Mb)

Aquest element apareix en la col·lecció o col·leccions següent(s)

Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

Cerca a RODERIC

Cerca avançada

Visualitza

Estadístiques