Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption

The alveolar bone resorption that occurs around a 2-piece implant following abutment attachment is a well-documented observation. Several investigators propose that crestal bone loss is a response to the invasion of the biologic width by secondary bacterial colonization and micromovements at the imp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Implant dentistry 2006-09, Vol.15 (3), p.313-320
Hauptverfasser: Vela-Nebot, Xavier, Rodríguez-Ciurana, Xavier, Rodado-Alonso, Carlos, Segalà-Torres, Maribel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The alveolar bone resorption that occurs around a 2-piece implant following abutment attachment is a well-documented observation. Several investigators propose that crestal bone loss is a response to the invasion of the biologic width by secondary bacterial colonization and micromovements at the implant-abutment interface. This study proposes the creation of a difference between the diameter of the implant platform and diameter of the abutment (implant platform modification), shifting the implant-abutment interface medially to minimize invasion of the biologic width. We present a series of 30 control cases and 30 study cases using the platform-modification technique. Interproximal bone resorption on the medial and distal of each implant was assessed using digital radiography at 1, 4, and 6 months after abutment attachment. The mean value of bone resorption observed in the mesial measurement for the control group was 2.53 mm, whereas for those patients included in the study group, it was 0.76 mm. The mean value of bone resorption observed in the distal measurement for patients in the control group was 2.56 mm, whereas for those included in the study group, it was 0.77 mm. All patients in the study group had a significant reduction of bone loss in comparison to the control group (P < 0.0005).
ISSN:1056-6163
DOI:10.1097/01.id.0000226788.19742.32