A prospective, split‐mouth study comparing tilted implants with angulated connection versus conventional implants with angulated abutment. (16th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Van Weehaeghe, Manú; De Bruyn, Hugo; Vandeweghe, Stefan
• Is Part Of: Clinical implant dentistry and related research. Volume 19:Number 6(2017:Dec.)
• Page Start: 989
• Page End: 996
• Publication Date: 2017-10-16
• Subjects: all‐on‐4 -- angulated abutment -- dental implants -- edentulous -- immediate loading -- tilted implant; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dental Implantation -- Periodicals; Dental Implants -- Periodicals; 617.693
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12544
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-0899

Abstract

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.