Advanced search
1 file | 466.21 KB Add to list

A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment

Manú Van Weehaeghe (UGent) , Hugo De Bruyn (UGent) and Stefan Vandeweghe (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: An angulation of the implant connection could overcome the problems related to angulated abutments. Purpose: This study compares conventional implants with angulated abutment to tilted implants with an angulated connection. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients were treated in the edentulous mandible. In the posterior jaw locations, one conventional tilted implant with angulated abutment and one angulated implant without abutment were placed. In the anterior jaw, two conventional implants were placed, one with and one without abutment. Implants were immediately loaded and 3 months later, the final bridge (PFM or monolithic zirconia) was placed. Results: After a follow-up of 48 months, 17 patients were available for clinical examination. The mean overall marginal bone loss (MBL) was 1.26 mm. No significant differences in implant survival, MBL, periodontal indices, patients' satisfaction, or complications was found between implants restored on abutment or implant level, between the posteriorly located angulated implant nor angulated abutment, and between both anterior implants with or without abutment. The posterior implants demonstrated less MBL compared to the anterior implants (P<.001). There was no significant difference in MBL between the implants restored with zirconia or PFM bridges (P=.294). Overall mean pocket depth was 2.83 mm. More plaque was found in the PFM group compared to the full-zirconia group, at the bridge (P=.042) and the implants (P=.029). There was no difference between both materials in pocket depth (P=.635) or bleeding (P=.821). One zirconia bridge fractured, two angulated abutment were replaced and four loose bridge screws connected to the angulated abutments had to be tightened. Patients were overall satisfied (4.74/5). Conclusion: An implant with angulated connection may results in a stronger connection but does not affect the marginal bone loss. No difference in MBL was seen between implants restored on abutment or implant level. Zirconia seems to reduce the amount of plaque.
Keywords
all-on-4, angulated abutment, dental implants, edentulous, immediate loading, tilted implant, SOFT-TISSUE THICKNESS, 4 IMMEDIATE FUNCTION, BONE LEVEL CHANGES, FIXED PROSTHESES, FOLLOW-UP, EDENTULOUS PATIENTS, COBALT-CHROME, REHABILITATION, TITANIUM, ARCH

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 466.21 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Van Weehaeghe, Manú, Hugo De Bruyn, and Stefan Vandeweghe. “A Prospective, Split-mouth Study Comparing Tilted Implants with Angulated Connection Versus Conventional Implants with Angulated Abutment.” CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH 19.6 (2017): 989–996. Print.
APA
Van Weehaeghe, M., De Bruyn, H., & Vandeweghe, S. (2017). A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 19(6), 989–996.
Chicago author-date
Van Weehaeghe, Manú, Hugo De Bruyn, and Stefan Vandeweghe. 2017. “A Prospective, Split-mouth Study Comparing Tilted Implants with Angulated Connection Versus Conventional Implants with Angulated Abutment.” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 19 (6): 989–996.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Van Weehaeghe, Manú, Hugo De Bruyn, and Stefan Vandeweghe. 2017. “A Prospective, Split-mouth Study Comparing Tilted Implants with Angulated Connection Versus Conventional Implants with Angulated Abutment.” Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 19 (6): 989–996.
Vancouver
1.
Van Weehaeghe M, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH. 2017;19(6):989–96.
IEEE
[1]
M. Van Weehaeghe, H. De Bruyn, and S. Vandeweghe, “A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment,” CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 989–996, 2017.
@article{8581091,
  abstract     = {Background: An angulation of the implant connection could overcome the problems related to angulated abutments. 
Purpose: This study compares conventional implants with angulated abutment to tilted implants with an angulated connection. 
Materials and Methods: Twenty patients were treated in the edentulous mandible. In the posterior jaw locations, one conventional tilted implant with angulated abutment and one angulated implant without abutment were placed. In the anterior jaw, two conventional implants were placed, one with and one without abutment. Implants were immediately loaded and 3 months later, the final bridge (PFM or monolithic zirconia) was placed. 
Results: After a follow-up of 48 months, 17 patients were available for clinical examination. The mean overall marginal bone loss (MBL) was 1.26 mm. No significant differences in implant survival, MBL, periodontal indices, patients' satisfaction, or complications was found between implants restored on abutment or implant level, between the posteriorly located angulated implant nor angulated abutment, and between both anterior implants with or without abutment. The posterior implants demonstrated less MBL compared to the anterior implants (P<.001). There was no significant difference in MBL between the implants restored with zirconia or PFM bridges (P=.294). Overall mean pocket depth was 2.83 mm. More plaque was found in the PFM group compared to the full-zirconia group, at the bridge (P=.042) and the implants (P=.029). There was no difference between both materials in pocket depth (P=.635) or bleeding (P=.821). One zirconia bridge fractured, two angulated abutment were replaced and four loose bridge screws connected to the angulated abutments had to be tightened. Patients were overall satisfied (4.74/5). 
Conclusion: An implant with angulated connection may results in a stronger connection but does not affect the marginal bone loss. No difference in MBL was seen between implants restored on abutment or implant level. Zirconia seems to reduce the amount of plaque.},
  author       = {Van Weehaeghe, Manú and De Bruyn, Hugo and Vandeweghe, Stefan},
  issn         = {1523-0899},
  journal      = {CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH},
  keywords     = {all-on-4,angulated abutment,dental implants,edentulous,immediate loading,tilted implant,SOFT-TISSUE THICKNESS,4 IMMEDIATE FUNCTION,BONE LEVEL CHANGES,FIXED PROSTHESES,FOLLOW-UP,EDENTULOUS PATIENTS,COBALT-CHROME,REHABILITATION,TITANIUM,ARCH},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {989--996},
  title        = {A prospective, split-mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12544},
  volume       = {19},
  year         = {2017},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: