Loading…

Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations

Crest module can be defined as the portion of a two-piece implant designed to retain the prosthetic components and to allows the maintenance of the peri-implant tissues in the transition zone. To evaluate the three-year after loading clinical and radiographic data, collected from patients that recei...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Dentistry journal 2020-12, Vol.8 (4), p.135
Main Authors: Meloni, Silvio Mario, Melis, Luca, Xhanari, Erta, Tallarico, Marco, Spano, Giovanni, Pisano, Milena, Baldoni, Edoardo, Cervino, Gabriele, Tullio, Antonio, Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-4f27fbe9c01d9990add3d4531dc5fdab6662d9f785eee46c0b4dc0566884fe53
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 135
container_title Dentistry journal
container_volume 8
creator Meloni, Silvio Mario
Melis, Luca
Xhanari, Erta
Tallarico, Marco
Spano, Giovanni
Pisano, Milena
Baldoni, Edoardo
Cervino, Gabriele
Tullio, Antonio
Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata
description Crest module can be defined as the portion of a two-piece implant designed to retain the prosthetic components and to allows the maintenance of the peri-implant tissues in the transition zone. To evaluate the three-year after loading clinical and radiographic data, collected from patients that received a prosthetic rehabilitation on conical connection implants with partial machined collar (PMC; CC Group) and same body-designed implants, with flat-to-flat connection and groovy neck design (FC Group). A retrospective chart review of previously collected data, including documents, radiographs, and pictures of patients who received at least one implant-supported restoration on NobelReplace CC PMC or NobelReplace Tapered Groovy implants was performed. Patients with at least three years of follow-up after final loading were considered for this study. Outcomes measures were implant and prosthesis failures, any biological or technical complications, marginal bone loss. Eight-two patients (44 women, 38 men; average age 55.6) with 152 implants were selected and divided in two groups with 77 (CC group) and 75 (FC group), respectively. Three years after final loading, one implant in CC group failed (98.7% survival rate), while no implants failed in FC group (100% survival rate). One restoration failed in CC group (98.7% survival rate) with no restoration failing in the FC one (100% survival rate). Differences were not statistically significant ( = 1.0). Three years after final loading, mean marginal bone loss was 0.22 ± 0.06 mm (95% CI 0.2-0.24) in CC group and 0.62 ± 0.30 mm (95% CI 0.52-0.72) in FC group. The difference was statistically significant (0.40 ± 0.13 mm; 95% CI 0.3-0.5; = 0.003). with the limitation of this retrospective comparative study, implants with conical connection and partial machined collar seem to achieve a trend of superior outcomes if compared with implants with flat connection and groovy collar design.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/dj8040135
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_21395c949c2a46cd9f832579a1ee49e6</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_21395c949c2a46cd9f832579a1ee49e6</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2471463254</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-4f27fbe9c01d9990add3d4531dc5fdab6662d9f785eee46c0b4dc0566884fe53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkU1v1DAQhiMEolXpgT-AfIRDwIk_El-QYEthpaJK7V44WY493vUqiYPttFrx5-vtllU7lxl5Xj3jmbco3lf4MyECfzHbFlNcEfaqOK0JpiVvePP6WX1SnMe4xTlERdqavC1OyD6EaE-Lf6tNACj_gAroBlLwcQKd3B2ghR8mFdRjfZtms0MdpHuAES2HqVdjiujepQ26VQOg797syguIbj2ibk7owlkLAcaEFgFiQr-9mfs9c7RuPe-pfozvijdW9RHOn_JZsbr8sVr8Kq-ufy4X365KnfdKJbV1YzsQGldGCIGVMcRQRiqjmTWq45zXRtimZQBAucYdNRozztuWWmDkrFgesMarrZyCG1TYSa-cfHzwYS1VSE73IOuKCKYFFbpWmZSpLalZI1SVyQJ4Zn09sKa5G8DovGFQ_Qvoy87oNnLt72TTcEZZmwEfnwDB_53zaeTgooY-HxT8HGVNm4ryPJRm6aeDVGdXYgB7HFNhubdeHq3P2g_P_3VU_jeaPAD2Mqvl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2471463254</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Meloni, Silvio Mario ; Melis, Luca ; Xhanari, Erta ; Tallarico, Marco ; Spano, Giovanni ; Pisano, Milena ; Baldoni, Edoardo ; Cervino, Gabriele ; Tullio, Antonio ; Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</creator><creatorcontrib>Meloni, Silvio Mario ; Melis, Luca ; Xhanari, Erta ; Tallarico, Marco ; Spano, Giovanni ; Pisano, Milena ; Baldoni, Edoardo ; Cervino, Gabriele ; Tullio, Antonio ; Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</creatorcontrib><description>Crest module can be defined as the portion of a two-piece implant designed to retain the prosthetic components and to allows the maintenance of the peri-implant tissues in the transition zone. To evaluate the three-year after loading clinical and radiographic data, collected from patients that received a prosthetic rehabilitation on conical connection implants with partial machined collar (PMC; CC Group) and same body-designed implants, with flat-to-flat connection and groovy neck design (FC Group). A retrospective chart review of previously collected data, including documents, radiographs, and pictures of patients who received at least one implant-supported restoration on NobelReplace CC PMC or NobelReplace Tapered Groovy implants was performed. Patients with at least three years of follow-up after final loading were considered for this study. Outcomes measures were implant and prosthesis failures, any biological or technical complications, marginal bone loss. Eight-two patients (44 women, 38 men; average age 55.6) with 152 implants were selected and divided in two groups with 77 (CC group) and 75 (FC group), respectively. Three years after final loading, one implant in CC group failed (98.7% survival rate), while no implants failed in FC group (100% survival rate). One restoration failed in CC group (98.7% survival rate) with no restoration failing in the FC one (100% survival rate). Differences were not statistically significant ( = 1.0). Three years after final loading, mean marginal bone loss was 0.22 ± 0.06 mm (95% CI 0.2-0.24) in CC group and 0.62 ± 0.30 mm (95% CI 0.52-0.72) in FC group. The difference was statistically significant (0.40 ± 0.13 mm; 95% CI 0.3-0.5; = 0.003). with the limitation of this retrospective comparative study, implants with conical connection and partial machined collar seem to achieve a trend of superior outcomes if compared with implants with flat connection and groovy collar design.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2304-6767</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2304-6767</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/dj8040135</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33333998</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI</publisher><subject>dental implants ; implant depth ; implant–abutment connection ; machined collar ; marginal bone loss</subject><ispartof>Dentistry journal, 2020-12, Vol.8 (4), p.135</ispartof><rights>2020 by the authors. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-4f27fbe9c01d9990add3d4531dc5fdab6662d9f785eee46c0b4dc0566884fe53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4619-4691 ; 0000-0001-9206-0454</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7765458/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7765458/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27923,27924,37012,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33333998$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meloni, Silvio Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melis, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xhanari, Erta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tallarico, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spano, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pisano, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldoni, Edoardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cervino, Gabriele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tullio, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</creatorcontrib><title>Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations</title><title>Dentistry journal</title><addtitle>Dent J (Basel)</addtitle><description>Crest module can be defined as the portion of a two-piece implant designed to retain the prosthetic components and to allows the maintenance of the peri-implant tissues in the transition zone. To evaluate the three-year after loading clinical and radiographic data, collected from patients that received a prosthetic rehabilitation on conical connection implants with partial machined collar (PMC; CC Group) and same body-designed implants, with flat-to-flat connection and groovy neck design (FC Group). A retrospective chart review of previously collected data, including documents, radiographs, and pictures of patients who received at least one implant-supported restoration on NobelReplace CC PMC or NobelReplace Tapered Groovy implants was performed. Patients with at least three years of follow-up after final loading were considered for this study. Outcomes measures were implant and prosthesis failures, any biological or technical complications, marginal bone loss. Eight-two patients (44 women, 38 men; average age 55.6) with 152 implants were selected and divided in two groups with 77 (CC group) and 75 (FC group), respectively. Three years after final loading, one implant in CC group failed (98.7% survival rate), while no implants failed in FC group (100% survival rate). One restoration failed in CC group (98.7% survival rate) with no restoration failing in the FC one (100% survival rate). Differences were not statistically significant ( = 1.0). Three years after final loading, mean marginal bone loss was 0.22 ± 0.06 mm (95% CI 0.2-0.24) in CC group and 0.62 ± 0.30 mm (95% CI 0.52-0.72) in FC group. The difference was statistically significant (0.40 ± 0.13 mm; 95% CI 0.3-0.5; = 0.003). with the limitation of this retrospective comparative study, implants with conical connection and partial machined collar seem to achieve a trend of superior outcomes if compared with implants with flat connection and groovy collar design.</description><subject>dental implants</subject><subject>implant depth</subject><subject>implant–abutment connection</subject><subject>machined collar</subject><subject>marginal bone loss</subject><issn>2304-6767</issn><issn>2304-6767</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkU1v1DAQhiMEolXpgT-AfIRDwIk_El-QYEthpaJK7V44WY493vUqiYPttFrx5-vtllU7lxl5Xj3jmbco3lf4MyECfzHbFlNcEfaqOK0JpiVvePP6WX1SnMe4xTlERdqavC1OyD6EaE-Lf6tNACj_gAroBlLwcQKd3B2ghR8mFdRjfZtms0MdpHuAES2HqVdjiujepQ26VQOg797syguIbj2ibk7owlkLAcaEFgFiQr-9mfs9c7RuPe-pfozvijdW9RHOn_JZsbr8sVr8Kq-ufy4X365KnfdKJbV1YzsQGldGCIGVMcRQRiqjmTWq45zXRtimZQBAucYdNRozztuWWmDkrFgesMarrZyCG1TYSa-cfHzwYS1VSE73IOuKCKYFFbpWmZSpLalZI1SVyQJ4Zn09sKa5G8DovGFQ_Qvoy87oNnLt72TTcEZZmwEfnwDB_53zaeTgooY-HxT8HGVNm4ryPJRm6aeDVGdXYgB7HFNhubdeHq3P2g_P_3VU_jeaPAD2Mqvl</recordid><startdate>20201215</startdate><enddate>20201215</enddate><creator>Meloni, Silvio Mario</creator><creator>Melis, Luca</creator><creator>Xhanari, Erta</creator><creator>Tallarico, Marco</creator><creator>Spano, Giovanni</creator><creator>Pisano, Milena</creator><creator>Baldoni, Edoardo</creator><creator>Cervino, Gabriele</creator><creator>Tullio, Antonio</creator><creator>Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</creator><general>MDPI</general><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-4691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9206-0454</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201215</creationdate><title>Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations</title><author>Meloni, Silvio Mario ; Melis, Luca ; Xhanari, Erta ; Tallarico, Marco ; Spano, Giovanni ; Pisano, Milena ; Baldoni, Edoardo ; Cervino, Gabriele ; Tullio, Antonio ; Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-4f27fbe9c01d9990add3d4531dc5fdab6662d9f785eee46c0b4dc0566884fe53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>implant depth</topic><topic>implant–abutment connection</topic><topic>machined collar</topic><topic>marginal bone loss</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meloni, Silvio Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melis, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xhanari, Erta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tallarico, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spano, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pisano, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldoni, Edoardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cervino, Gabriele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tullio, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Dentistry journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meloni, Silvio Mario</au><au>Melis, Luca</au><au>Xhanari, Erta</au><au>Tallarico, Marco</au><au>Spano, Giovanni</au><au>Pisano, Milena</au><au>Baldoni, Edoardo</au><au>Cervino, Gabriele</au><au>Tullio, Antonio</au><au>Lumbau, Aurea Immacolata</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations</atitle><jtitle>Dentistry journal</jtitle><addtitle>Dent J (Basel)</addtitle><date>2020-12-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>135</spage><pages>135-</pages><issn>2304-6767</issn><eissn>2304-6767</eissn><abstract>Crest module can be defined as the portion of a two-piece implant designed to retain the prosthetic components and to allows the maintenance of the peri-implant tissues in the transition zone. To evaluate the three-year after loading clinical and radiographic data, collected from patients that received a prosthetic rehabilitation on conical connection implants with partial machined collar (PMC; CC Group) and same body-designed implants, with flat-to-flat connection and groovy neck design (FC Group). A retrospective chart review of previously collected data, including documents, radiographs, and pictures of patients who received at least one implant-supported restoration on NobelReplace CC PMC or NobelReplace Tapered Groovy implants was performed. Patients with at least three years of follow-up after final loading were considered for this study. Outcomes measures were implant and prosthesis failures, any biological or technical complications, marginal bone loss. Eight-two patients (44 women, 38 men; average age 55.6) with 152 implants were selected and divided in two groups with 77 (CC group) and 75 (FC group), respectively. Three years after final loading, one implant in CC group failed (98.7% survival rate), while no implants failed in FC group (100% survival rate). One restoration failed in CC group (98.7% survival rate) with no restoration failing in the FC one (100% survival rate). Differences were not statistically significant ( = 1.0). Three years after final loading, mean marginal bone loss was 0.22 ± 0.06 mm (95% CI 0.2-0.24) in CC group and 0.62 ± 0.30 mm (95% CI 0.52-0.72) in FC group. The difference was statistically significant (0.40 ± 0.13 mm; 95% CI 0.3-0.5; = 0.003). with the limitation of this retrospective comparative study, implants with conical connection and partial machined collar seem to achieve a trend of superior outcomes if compared with implants with flat connection and groovy collar design.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI</pub><pmid>33333998</pmid><doi>10.3390/dj8040135</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-4691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9206-0454</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2304-6767
ispartof Dentistry journal, 2020-12, Vol.8 (4), p.135
issn 2304-6767
2304-6767
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_21395c949c2a46cd9f832579a1ee49e6
source PubMed (Medline); Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)
subjects dental implants
implant depth
implant–abutment connection
machined collar
marginal bone loss
title Three-Year Retrospective Comparative Study between Implants with Same Body-Design but Different Crest Module Configurations
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T01%3A01%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Three-Year%20Retrospective%20Comparative%20Study%20between%20Implants%20with%20Same%20Body-Design%20but%20Different%20Crest%20Module%20Configurations&rft.jtitle=Dentistry%20journal&rft.au=Meloni,%20Silvio%20Mario&rft.date=2020-12-15&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=135&rft.pages=135-&rft.issn=2304-6767&rft.eissn=2304-6767&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/dj8040135&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2471463254%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-4f27fbe9c01d9990add3d4531dc5fdab6662d9f785eee46c0b4dc0566884fe53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2471463254&rft_id=info:pmid/33333998&rfr_iscdi=true