CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(02): 194-199
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709895
Original Article

Survival and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants Supporting Cad-Cam Angled Channel Restorations: A Split-Mouth Retrospective Study

Eduardo Anitua
1   Clínica Eduardo Anitua, Vitoria, Spain
2   BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain
,
Sofía Fernández-de-Retana
2   BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain
,
Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
2   BTI Biotechnology Institute, Vitoria, Spain
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether the screw emergence angulation correction by computer-aided design (CAD)-computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) can influence implant survival and marginal bone stability.

Materials and Methods This was a controlled split-mouth retrospective study of angled channel restorations. The dental implants supporting the prosthesis were divided into the following two groups: the first group (Group 1) included the implants that required screw channel angulation, while the second group (Group 2) included the implants that did not require this correction to screw the prosthesis to the implant. The main outcome variables were implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL).

Results A total of 68 dental implants placed in 22 patients were included in the final cohort. The mean follow-up time was 39.65 ± 15.20 months. None of the studied implants failed during the follow-up period and the mean MBL was − 0.29 ± 0.51 mm at the end of the follow-up. No statistical differences in the MBL were observed between the two groups of the study (-0.18 ± 0.51 and − 0.23 ± 0.58 mm, respectively).

Conclusion The angulation of the screw channel with CAD-CAM technology resulted in good clinical outcomes and did not affect MBL. Thus, the angulated screw channel might be considered an alternative to face undesired screw emergencies. Future prospective clinical studies should confirm these results.



Publication History

Article published online:
24 May 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 
  • References

  • 1 Nagahisa K, Arai K, Baba S. Study on oral health-related quality of life in patients after dental implant treatment with patient-reported outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (05) 1141-1148
  • 2 Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions–a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (Suppl) 84-98
  • 3 Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CHF, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 163-201
  • 4 Gjelvold B, Sohrabi MM, Chrcanovic BR. Angled screw channel: An alternative to cemented single-implant restorations–three clinical examples. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (01) 74-76
  • 5 Cavallaro Jr J, Greenstein G. Angled implant abutments: a practical application of available knowledge. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142 (02) 150-158
  • 6 Lin CL, Wang JC, Ramp LC, Liu PR. Biomechanical response of implant systems placed in the maxillary posterior region under various conditions of angulation, bone density, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23 (01) 57-64
  • 7 Alikhasi M, Rohanian A, Ghodsi S, Kolde AM. Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 71-76
  • 8 Bilgin MS, Baytaroğlu EN, Erdem A, Dilber E. A review of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture techniques for removable denture fabrication. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (02) 286-291
  • 9 Kapos T, Evans C. CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns, and superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (Suppl) 117-136
  • 10 Anitua E, Flores C, Piñas L, Alkhraisat MH. Frequency of technical complications in fixed implant prosthesis: The effect of prosthesis screw emergence correction by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. J Oral Implantol 2018; 44 (06) 427-431
  • 11 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (04) 344-349
  • 12 Anitua E, Carda C, Andia I. A novel drilling procedure and subsequent bone autograft preparation: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (01) 138-145
  • 13 Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Piñas L, Orive G. Efficacy of biologically guided implant site preparation to obtain adequate primary implant stability. Ann Anat 2015; 199: 9-15
  • 14 Anitua E, Tejero R, Zalduendo MM, Orive G. Plasma rich in growth factors promotes bone tissue regeneration by stimulating proliferation, migration, and autocrine secretion in primary human osteoblasts. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (08) 1180-1190
  • 15 Anitua E. Plasma rich in growth factors: preliminary results of use in the preparation of future sites for implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14 (04) 529-535
  • 16 Anitua E, Orive G, Aguirre JJ, Ardanza B, Andía I. 5-year clinical experience with BTI dental implants: risk factors for implant failure. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (08) 724-732
  • 17 Kim YT, Lim GH, Lee JH, Jeong SN. Marginal bone level changes in association with different vertical implant positions: a 3-year retrospective study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017; 47 (04) 231-239
  • 18 Segal P, Makhoul A, Eger M, Lucchina AG, Winocur E, Mijiritsky E. Preliminary study to evaluate marginal bone loss in cases of 2- and 3-implant-supported fixed partial prostheses of the posterior mandible. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (04) 1068-1072
  • 19 Arun G Kumar, Mahesh B, George D. Three dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution around implant with straight and angled abutments in different bone qualities. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13 (04) 466-472
  • 20 Singh NK, Chalapathy SB, Thota RP, Chakravarthula K, Tirnati R, Yenugupalli K. Evaluation of stress distribution among two different pre-angled abutments of implants in two different densities of bone at different levels along the implant-/n vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (11) 1370-1375
  • 21 Sousa MP, Tribst JPM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Borges ALS, de Oliveira S, da Cruz PC. Capacity to maintain placement torque at removal, single load-to-failure, and stress concentration of straight and angled abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2019; 39 (02) 213-218
  • 22 Omori Y, Lang NP, Botticelli D, Papageorgiou SN, Baba S. Biological and mechanical complications of angulated abutments connected to fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2020; 47 (01) 101-111
  • 23 Hernández-Marcos G, Hernández-Herrera M, Anitua E. Marginal bone loss around short dental implants restored at implant level and with transmucosal abutment: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (06) 1362-1367