Morphometric Comparison of Two Implants with Different Macrogeometries Placed Immediately in the Anterior Maxilla-A Randomized Clinical Trial with up to 6 Months of Follow-up.
Laura Silva, Francisco Correia, António Felino, Ana Cristina Braga, Ricardo Faria-Almeida
{"title":"Morphometric Comparison of Two Implants with Different Macrogeometries Placed Immediately in the Anterior Maxilla-A Randomized Clinical Trial with up to 6 Months of Follow-up.","authors":"Laura Silva, Francisco Correia, António Felino, Ana Cristina Braga, Ricardo Faria-Almeida","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the morphometric results of immediate implants with a cylindrical (conventional) or triangular neck placed in Type 1C sockets in the anterior maxilla, with 6 months of osseointegration.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized clinical trial comprised 20 individuals randomly assigned to each group (10 triangular-neck implants and 10 cylindrical-neck implants). Consecutively, direct measurements were performed: before (T-1) and after (T0) tooth extraction, after implant placement (T1), after 1 month of submerged implant healing (T2), when placing the healing abutment (T3), after placing the definitive crown (T3c), and after 6 months of osseointegration (T4).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference in the buccal cortical thickness was identified between T1 and T3 (0.49 ± 0.86 mm). Although there was a significant increase in the buccal cortical thickness in both implants, this increase was greater for the triangularneck implants (0.08 ± 0.59 mm for cylindrical vs 0.90 ± 0.91 mm for triangular). It was also observed that implants placed below the buccal bone crest (≤ -1 mm) promote less vertical buccal bone loss than implants placed ≥ -1 mm, at crest level (-0.65 ± 0.52 mm vs -1.42 ± 0.86 mm, respectively). This observation needs to be further investigated in additional studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The triangular-neck implants showed an increase in the cortical buccal thickness compared to the cylindrical implants. However, this increase does not fully compensate the remodeling after tooth loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"99-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the morphometric results of immediate implants with a cylindrical (conventional) or triangular neck placed in Type 1C sockets in the anterior maxilla, with 6 months of osseointegration.
Materials and methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial comprised 20 individuals randomly assigned to each group (10 triangular-neck implants and 10 cylindrical-neck implants). Consecutively, direct measurements were performed: before (T-1) and after (T0) tooth extraction, after implant placement (T1), after 1 month of submerged implant healing (T2), when placing the healing abutment (T3), after placing the definitive crown (T3c), and after 6 months of osseointegration (T4).
Results: A significant difference in the buccal cortical thickness was identified between T1 and T3 (0.49 ± 0.86 mm). Although there was a significant increase in the buccal cortical thickness in both implants, this increase was greater for the triangularneck implants (0.08 ± 0.59 mm for cylindrical vs 0.90 ± 0.91 mm for triangular). It was also observed that implants placed below the buccal bone crest (≤ -1 mm) promote less vertical buccal bone loss than implants placed ≥ -1 mm, at crest level (-0.65 ± 0.52 mm vs -1.42 ± 0.86 mm, respectively). This observation needs to be further investigated in additional studies.
Conclusions: The triangular-neck implants showed an increase in the cortical buccal thickness compared to the cylindrical implants. However, this increase does not fully compensate the remodeling after tooth loss.