Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Sep;27(9):1055-64.
doi: 10.1111/clr.12692. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Vivianne Chappuis et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Sep.

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.

Keywords: bone loss; bone regeneration; bone remodeling; bone resorption; cone beam computed tomography; dental implant-abutment design; dental implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources