J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2023 Mar;39(1):32-44. 10.14368/jdras.2023.39.1.32.

Marginal bone loss between internal- and external- abutment connection type implants placed in the first molar area

• Lee SH
• Lee EW
• Jung HN
• Kim OS

• KMID: 2549250
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2023.39.1.32

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant connection type on marginal bone loss (MBL) and to ana-lyze the factors that affect MBL. This study focuses on single implants planted in the upper and lower first molar area.
Materials and Methods
A total of 87 implants from 68 patients were tracked for a period over 5 years. There were 57 external connection type (EC) implants and 30 internal connection type (IC) implants in 38 males and 30 females. The MBL and EA were measured from intraoral radiograph images taken after 5 years at most.
Results
Significant difference in MBL between EC and IC type was observed in pa-tients without GBR or diabetes. Patients without GBR exhibited an MBL of -0.065 ± 0.859 mm in EC type and -0.627 ± 0.639 mm in IC type (P = 0.025). Using multiple regression analysis, a statistically significant negative correlation was observed between MBL and conditions including implant-abutment connection type (β = -0.303), diabetes (β = -0.113), emergence angle > 30° (β = -0.234), and age (β = -0.776).
Conclusion
Within this results, IC type implants had less MBL than EC type, and implant prosthesis with emergence angle over 30° showed greater MBL. To minimize the MBL of the implant and ensure implant stability, careful consideration should be given to the EA of implant prosthesis and its connection type.

Keyword

implant stability; marginal bone loss; abutment connection type; emergence angle

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Radiographic images of two different abutment connection types. (A) EC, (B) IC.

• 

  Fig. 2 Flow diagram of this study.

• 

  Fig. 3 Radiation photograph showing marginal bone level (MBL) were measured at mesial and distal sites. “a” and “b” indicates the measured length from implant platform (IP) to actual length of the implant fixture (AF) and “c” indicates the measured length of the implant fixture (MIF). BIC, Bone-to-implant contact.

• 

  Fig. 4 Radiation photograph showing marginal bone level. Negative number was recorded at the bone level in the upper part of the implant shoulder (A), and the positive number at the lower part (B). “a” and “b” indicates the mesial, distal marginal bone loss, respectively.

• 

  Fig. 5 Radiation photograph showing EA measured at mesial and distal sites. (a) parallel to implant long axis. (b) from implant to abutment connection point to the emergence profile. The angle of the intersection (c) resulted in the EA.

Reference

References

1. Brånemark Pl, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. 1969; Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 3:81–100. DOI: 10.3109/02844316909036699. PMID: 4924041.

2. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. 1998; Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointergrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci. 106:721–64. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-6-.x. PMID: 9672097.

3. Aparna IN, Dhanasekar B, Lingeshwar D, Gupta L. 2012; Implant crest module: a review of biomechanical considerations. Indian J Dent Res. 23:257–63. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.100437. PMID: 22945720. PMID: eb973963550e4376a7b5421fe0e409b0.

4. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D. 2004; AICRG, Part II: Crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: Loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol. 30:134–43. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<134:APICBL>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 15255390.

5. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. 1981; A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 10:387–416. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4. PMID: 6809663.

6. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, da Silva EV, Bonatto LR, dos Santos DM. 2015; Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 19:229–42. DOI: 10.1007/s10006-015-0494-5. PMID: 25910993.

7. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. 1986; The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1:11–25. PMID: 3527955.

8. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. 2004; Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 19:247–59.

9. Laine P, Salo A, Kontio R, Ylijoki S, Lindqvist C, Suuronen R. 2005; Failed dental implants - clinical, radiological and bacteriological findings in 17 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 33:212–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2004.12.004. PMID: 15878525.

10. Behneke A, Behneke N, d'Hoedt B. 2002; A 5-year longitudinal study of the clinical effectiveness of ITI solid-screw implants in the treatment of mandibular edentulism. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 17:799–810. PMID: 12507239.

11. Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. 2010; Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 81:1350–66. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100232. PMID: 20575657.

12. Jones AA, Cochran DL. 2006; Consequences of implant design. Dent Clin North Am. 50:339–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.008. PMID: 16818019.

13. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Tallarico M, Barlattani A. 2014; Clinical and radiological outcomes of two implants with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations: randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 16:96–106. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00465.x. PMID: 22672713.

14. Calvo-Guirado JL, Gómez-Moreno G, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Guardia J, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Romanos GE. 2015; Marginal bone loss evaluation around immediate non-occlusal microthreaded implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the maxilla: a 3-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 26:761–7. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12336. PMID: 24422555.

15. Canullo L, Rosa JC, Pinto VS, Francischone CE, Götz W. 2012; Inward-inclined implant platform for the amplified platform-switching concept: 18-month follow-up report of a prospective randomized matched-pair controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 27:927–34. PMID: 22848896.

16. Koo KT, Lee EJ, Kim JY, Seol YJ, Han JS, Kim TI, Lee YM, Ku Y, Wikesjö UM, Rhyu IC. 2012; The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol. 83:1104–9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2011.110456. PMID: 22145806.

17. Schwarz F, Alcoforado G, Nelson K, Schaer A, Taylor T, Beuer F, Strietzel FP. 2014; Impact of implant-abutment connection, positioning of the machined collar/microgap, and platform switching on crestal bone level changes. Camlog Foundation Consensus Report. Clin Oral Implants Res. 25:1301–3. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12269. PMID: 24147913. PMCID: PMC4232323.

18. Pieri F, Aldini NN, Marchetti C, Corinaldesi G. 2011; Influence of implant-abutment interface design on bone and soft tissue levels around immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 26:169–78.

19. Shin YK, Han CH, Heo SJ, Kim S, Chun HJ. 2006; Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 21:789–94. PMID: 17066642.

20. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. 1992; Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res. 3:104–11. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x. PMID: 1290790.

21. Becker W, Becker BE. 1995; Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 74:51–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80229-X. PMID: 7674191.

22. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. 2006; In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil. 33:75–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x. PMID: 16409521.

23. Laurell L, Lundgren D. 2011; Marginal bone level changes at dental implants after 5 years in function: a meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 13:19–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00182.x. PMID: 19681932.

24. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. 2014; Three-year post-loading results of a randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol. 7:47–61.

25. Peñarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernández AJ, Alonso-González R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez J, Peñarrocha-Diago M. 2013; Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 24:1192–200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x. PMID: 22925048.

26. Crespi R, Capparè P, Gherlone E. 2009; Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels around platform-switched and non-platform-switched implants used in an immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 24:920–6.

27. Lin MI, Shen YW, Huang HL, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ. 2013; A retrospective study of implant-abutment connections on crestal bone level. J Dent Res. 92 Suppl 12:S202–7. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513510322. PMID: 24158343. PMCID: PMC3860058.

28. Kielbassa AM, Martinez-de Fuentes R, Goldstein M, Arnhart C, Barlattani A, Jackowski J, Knauf M, Lorenzoni M, Maiorana C, Mericske-Stern R, Rompen E, Sanz M. 2009; Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results. J Prosthet Dent. 101:293–305. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60060-3. PMID: 19410064.

29. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. 2010; Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 25:577–81. PMID: 20556258.

30. Zechner W, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Watzek G. 2003; Rotational panoramic versus intraoral rectangular radiographs for evalutation of peri-implant bone loss in the anterior atrophic mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 18:873–8.

31. Kullman L, Al-Asfour A, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L. 2007; Comparison of radiographic bone height assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 22:96–100. PMID: 17340902.

32. Kim DH, Kim HJ, Kim ST, Koo KT, Kim TI, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC. 2018; Comparison of marginal bone loss between internal- and external- connection dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 48:103–13. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2018.48.2.103. PMID: 29770239. PMCID: PMC5944221.

33. Liu Z, Fu C, Wang W, Xu B. 2010; Prevalence of chronic complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus in outpatients - a cross-sectional hospital based survey in urban China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 8:62. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-62. PMID: 20579389. PMCID: PMC2906445. PMID: 3a18505e7c974468950539756321b262.

34. Wu YY, Xiao E, Graves DT. 2015; Diabetes mellitus related bone metabolism and periodontal disease. Int J Oral Sci. 7:63–72. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2015.2. PMID: 25857702. PMCID: PMC4817554.

35. Iacopino AM. 2001; Periodontitis and diabetes interrelationships: role of inflammation. Ann Periodontol. 6:125–37. DOI: 10.1902/annals.2001.6.1.125. PMID: 11887455.

36. Souto-Maior JR, Pellizzer EP, de Luna Gomes JM, Dds CAAL, Dds JFSJ, Vasconcelos BCDE, de Moraes SLD. 2019; Influence of diabetes on the survival rate and marginal bone loss of dental implants: An overview of systematic reviews. J Oral Implantol. 45:334–40. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00087. PMID: 31042455.

37. Negri M, Galli C, Smerieri A, Macaluso GM, Manfredi E, Ghiacci G, Toffoli A, Bonanini M, Lumetti S. 2014; The effect of age, gender, and insertion site on marginal bone loss around endosseous implants: results from a 3-year trial with premium implant system. Biomed Res Int. 2014:369051. DOI: 10.1155/2014/369051. PMID: 25187903. PMCID: PMC4145382.

38. Katafuchi M, Weinstein BF, Leroux BG, Chen YW, Daubert DM. 2018; Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional radiographic analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 45:225–32. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12829. PMID: 28985447.

39. Yi Y, Koo KT, Schwarz F, Amara HB, Heo SJ. 2020; Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol. 47:392–403. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13251. PMID: 31912511.

40. Inoue M, Nakano T, Shimomoto T, Kabata D, Shintani A, Yatani H. 2022; Multivariate analysis of the influence of prosthodontic factors on peri-implant bleeding index and marginal bone level in a molar site: A cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 22:713–22. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12953. PMID: 33179401.

41. Tallarico M, Canullo L, Caneva M, Özcan M. 2017; Microbial colonization at the implant-abutment interface and its possible influence on periimplantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 61:233–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.03.001. PMID: 28359872.