Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up

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 impl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral implants research 2016-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1055-1064
Hauptverfasser: Chappuis, Vivianne, Bornstein, Michael M., Buser, Daniel, Belser, Urs
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1064
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1055
container_title Clinical oral implants research
container_volume 27
creator Chappuis, Vivianne
Bornstein, Michael M.
Buser, Daniel
Belser, Urs
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/clr.12692
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827880535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1816638534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5362-55c811c5a3fd327cd4afb6580850314caad2d99f21c65f7521c49f5eee670bae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkcFu1DAQhiMEotvCgRdAPsLBrR3HTsINraC0rIqoijhajjNmTR17ayds06fhUfGybW9IzGU0M9_80sxfFK8oOaY5TrSLx7QUbfmkWFBBCCac0KfFgrSE45oKelAcpvSTECLapn1eHJSC1XlYLYrfZ964CbwGFAyyw8YpPyIP-hr1kOwPj4JHRmmrHOqCB6QjpBH1dgCfbPAJWY_GNaDcXcNoNbrbUcorN99Bj7oZ6V2jAzWg5dU7pHI9bFRUo_0FKI1TP6OtHdd5wPEYcItnUBGZ4FzY4mnzonhmlEvw8j4fFd8-frhafsKrL6dny_crrDkTJeZcN5RqrpjpWVnrvlKmE7whDSeMVlqpvuzb1pRUC25qnnPVGg4AoiadAnZUvNnrbmK4mfI1crBJg8v_gDAlSZuybhrCGf8PlArBGs6qjL7dozqGlCIYuYl2UHGWlMiddzJ7J_96l9nX97JTN0D_SD6YlYGTPbC1DuZ_K8nl6vJBEu83bBrh9nFDxWspalZz-f3iVJ5X5-3nrxeXkrI_dc6zJw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1816638534</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Chappuis, Vivianne ; Bornstein, Michael M. ; Buser, Daniel ; Belser, Urs</creator><creatorcontrib>Chappuis, Vivianne ; Bornstein, Michael M. ; Buser, Daniel ; Belser, Urs</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.12692</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26370904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging ; Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology ; Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention &amp; control ; Alveolar Process - anatomy &amp; histology ; Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging ; Alveolar Process - surgery ; bone loss ; bone regeneration ; bone remodeling ; bone resorption ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; dental implant-abutment design ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods ; dental implants ; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dentistry ; Esthetics, Dental ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2016-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1055-1064</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5362-55c811c5a3fd327cd4afb6580850314caad2d99f21c65f7521c49f5eee670bae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5362-55c811c5a3fd327cd4afb6580850314caad2d99f21c65f7521c49f5eee670bae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.12692$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.12692$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26370904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chappuis, Vivianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bornstein, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buser, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belser, Urs</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Alveolar Process - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Alveolar Process - surgery</subject><subject>bone loss</subject><subject>bone regeneration</subject><subject>bone remodeling</subject><subject>bone resorption</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</subject><subject>dental implant-abutment design</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</subject><subject>dental implants</subject><subject>Dental Implants, Single-Tooth</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Esthetics, Dental</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkcFu1DAQhiMEotvCgRdAPsLBrR3HTsINraC0rIqoijhajjNmTR17ayds06fhUfGybW9IzGU0M9_80sxfFK8oOaY5TrSLx7QUbfmkWFBBCCac0KfFgrSE45oKelAcpvSTECLapn1eHJSC1XlYLYrfZ964CbwGFAyyw8YpPyIP-hr1kOwPj4JHRmmrHOqCB6QjpBH1dgCfbPAJWY_GNaDcXcNoNbrbUcorN99Bj7oZ6V2jAzWg5dU7pHI9bFRUo_0FKI1TP6OtHdd5wPEYcItnUBGZ4FzY4mnzonhmlEvw8j4fFd8-frhafsKrL6dny_crrDkTJeZcN5RqrpjpWVnrvlKmE7whDSeMVlqpvuzb1pRUC25qnnPVGg4AoiadAnZUvNnrbmK4mfI1crBJg8v_gDAlSZuybhrCGf8PlArBGs6qjL7dozqGlCIYuYl2UHGWlMiddzJ7J_96l9nX97JTN0D_SD6YlYGTPbC1DuZ_K8nl6vJBEu83bBrh9nFDxWspalZz-f3iVJ5X5-3nrxeXkrI_dc6zJw</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Chappuis, Vivianne</creator><creator>Bornstein, Michael M.</creator><creator>Buser, Daniel</creator><creator>Belser, Urs</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up</title><author>Chappuis, Vivianne ; Bornstein, Michael M. ; Buser, Daniel ; Belser, Urs</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5362-55c811c5a3fd327cd4afb6580850314caad2d99f21c65f7521c49f5eee670bae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Alveolar Process - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Alveolar Process - surgery</topic><topic>bone loss</topic><topic>bone regeneration</topic><topic>bone remodeling</topic><topic>bone resorption</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</topic><topic>dental implant-abutment design</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</topic><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>Dental Implants, Single-Tooth</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Esthetics, Dental</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chappuis, Vivianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bornstein, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buser, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belser, Urs</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chappuis, Vivianne</au><au>Bornstein, Michael M.</au><au>Buser, Daniel</au><au>Belser, Urs</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1055</spage><epage>1064</epage><pages>1055-1064</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26370904</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.12692</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0905-7161
ispartof Clinical oral implants research, 2016-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1055-1064
issn 0905-7161
1600-0501
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827880535
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging
Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology
Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control
Alveolar Process - anatomy & histology
Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging
Alveolar Process - surgery
bone loss
bone regeneration
bone remodeling
bone resorption
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
dental implant-abutment design
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
dental implants
Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
Dental Prosthesis Design
Dentistry
Esthetics, Dental
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Young Adult
title Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-9-year follow-up
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T16%3A08%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20implant%20neck%20design%20on%20facial%20bone%20crest%20dimensions%20in%20the%20esthetic%20zone%20analyzed%20by%20cone%20beam%20CT:%20a%20comparative%20study%20with%20a%205-to-9-year%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Chappuis,%20Vivianne&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1055&rft.epage=1064&rft.pages=1055-1064&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.12692&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1816638534%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1816638534&rft_id=info:pmid/26370904&rfr_iscdi=true