Display options
Cite
Danza M, Zollino I, Avantaggiato A, et al. Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption. Saudi Dent J. 2011;23(3):129-33doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002.
Danza, M., Zollino, I., Avantaggiato, A., Lucchese, A., & Carinci, F. (2011). Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption. The Saudi dental journal, 23(3), 129-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002
Danza, Matteo, et al. "Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption." The Saudi dental journal vol. 23,3 (2011): 129-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002
Danza M, Zollino I, Avantaggiato A, Lucchese A, Carinci F. Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption. Saudi Dent J. 2011 Jul;23(3):129-33. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002. Epub 2011 Feb 19. PMID: 23960506; PMCID: PMC3723294.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Saudi Dent J. 2011 Jul;23(3):129-33. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002. Epub 2011 Feb 19.

Distance between implants has a potential impact of crestal bone resorption.

The Saudi dental journal

Matteo Danza, Ilaria Zollino, Anna Avantaggiato, Alessandra Lucchese, Francesco Carinci

Affiliations

  1. Dental School, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.

PMID: 23960506 PMCID: PMC3723294 DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.02.002

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Around dental implants exists a "biologic width" of few millimeters that have to be preserved in order to not have adverse effect on soft and hard tissues around implant. Because the minimum distance between adjacent implants has not been determined yet, we therefore, decided to perform a retrospective study on a series of spiral family implants (SFIs) to verify the minimum inter-implants' distance that has an impact on crestal bone resorption.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine implants were investigated with a mean follow-up of 14 months. Implant diameter was 3.75, 4.2, 5 and 6 mm in 11 (18.6%), 29 (49.2%), 17 (28.8%) and 2 (3.4%) SFIs. Implant length was shorter than 13 mm, equal to 13 mm and 16 mm in 23 (39%), 23 (39%) and 13 (22%) SFIs. Implants were inserted to replace 13 incisors (22%), 7 cuspids (11.9%), 30 premolars (50.8%) and 9 molars (15.3%). Twenty-seven fixtures were inserted in post-extractive sockets and the remaining 32 in healed bone; 36 (61%) were immediately loaded. In addition to the above mentioned implant-related factors, several host- and surgery-factors were investigated. Independent samples T-test, univariate and multivariate analysis were used to detect those variables associated with the clinical outcome.

RESULTS: Data were evaluated with a two steps statistical analysis (i.e. univariate and multivariate) after having grouped implants in two series: those with an implant-implant distance less of 1.8 mm and those with an implant-implants distance greater than 1.8 mm. In univariate analysis, post-extractive implants and number of prosthetic units were statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, only post-extractive implants have a significant adverse effect on crestal bone resorption.

CONCLUSIONS: Adjacent implants inserted with a distance lower and higher than 1.8 mm have difference in crestal bone resorption but this difference is not statistically significant in a short period follow up. This could due to the specific implant used that has a reverse conical neck. No statistical difference was detected between implant subtypes. Post-extractive implant insertion is the major determinant in terms of peri-implant bone resorption in a short period follow-up.

Keywords: Biology; Implant; Resorption; Tooth; Width

References

  1. J Clin Periodontol. 1996 Oct;23(10):971-3 - PubMed
  2. J Periodontol. 2008 Jan;79(1):49-54 - PubMed
  3. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 May-Jun;11(3):351-9 - PubMed
  4. J Periodontol. 1997 Feb;68(2):186-98 - PubMed
  5. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000 Feb;11(1):1-11 - PubMed
  6. J Periodontol. 2001 Oct;72(10):1364-71 - PubMed
  7. J Craniofac Surg. 2007 Jul;18(4):965-71 - PubMed
  8. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1992 Sep;4(7):43-54 - PubMed
  9. J Periodontol. 2004 Apr;75(4):572-7 - PubMed
  10. J Maxillofac Surg. 1981 Feb;9(1):15-25 - PubMed
  11. J Periodontol. 2000 Apr;71(4):546-9 - PubMed
  12. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Aug;14(4):430-6 - PubMed
  13. J Periodontol. 1997 Nov;68(11):1117-30 - PubMed
  14. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991 Apr-Jun;2(2):81-90 - PubMed
  15. J Appl Biomater. 1995 Winter;6(4):267-82 - PubMed
  16. J Periodontol. 2000 Sep;71(9):1412-24 - PubMed
  17. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991 Jul-Sep;2(3):1-19 - PubMed
  18. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Sep;7(3):212-9 - PubMed
  19. J Periodontol. 1992 Dec;63(12):995-6 - PubMed
  20. Implant Dent. 1998;7(4):258-66 - PubMed
  21. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61 - PubMed
  22. Int J Prosthodont. 1998 Sep-Oct;11(5):517-21 - PubMed
  23. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2001 Mar;22(3):210-6, 218 - PubMed
  24. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993 Sep;4(3):151-7 - PubMed
  25. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Mar;7(1):11-9 - PubMed
  26. J Periodontol. 2003 Dec;74(12):1785-8 - PubMed
  27. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):763-8 - PubMed
  28. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000 Feb;20(1):11-7 - PubMed

Publication Types