Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study

José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores; Manuel Pérez-Fierro; Andrés Blanco-Carrión; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Lizett Castellanos-Cosano; Guillermo Machuca-Portillo

doi:10.4317/medoral.56422

Bone loss around narrow implants versus standard diameter implants: Retrospective 2-years case-control study

J Clin Exp Dent. 2020 Jan 1;12(1):e79-e84. doi: 10.4317/medoral.56422. eCollection 2020 Jan.

Authors

José-Ramón Corcuera-Flores¹, Manuel Pérez-Fierro², Andrés Blanco-Carrión³, Daniel Torres-Lagares⁴, Lizett Castellanos-Cosano⁵, Guillermo Machuca-Portillo⁶

Affiliations

¹ PhD, DDS, Associate Professor, Master's Program of Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.
² DDS, Associate Professor, Master's Program of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.
³ PhD, MD, DDS, Full Professor and Chairman, Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
⁴ PhD, DDS, Full Professor, Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.
⁵ PhD, DDS, Associate Professor, Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.
⁶ PhD, MD, DDS, Full Professor and Chairman, Special Care in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Spain.

Abstract

Background: The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up.

Material and methods: Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05.

Results: No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05).

Conclusions: With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson's index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs.