The subcrestal implant placement as factor for crestal bone stability in implant sites with vertically thin gingiva

This prospective comparative study aimed to determine the influence of the implant placement type (subcrestal or equicrestal) on bone level changes in platform-switched implants placed in sites with vertically thin gingiva (<3 mm) and restored with screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. Moreover, the effect of vertical gingival thickness on peri—implant bone loss was analyzed. The clinical significance of the study’s conclusions is in determining a modality of implant placement efficient in preserving stable crestal bone

The effect of subcrestal implant placement on bone loss at sites with vertically thin gingiva

This prospective comparative study aimed to determine the influence of the implant placement type (subcrestal or equicrestal) on bone level changes in platform-switched implants placed in sites with vertically thin gingiva (<3 mm) and restored with screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. Moreover, the effect of vertical gingival thickness on peri—implant bone loss was analyzed. The clinical significance of the study’s conclusions is in determining a modality of implant placement efficient in preserving stable crestal bone

Comparative evaluation of implant stability between osseodensification and underdrilling osteotomy technique

Background: Different implant bed drilling techniques have been proposed to increase the implant stability in order to facilitate better implant survival rates. Most of these techniques are indicated in areas with low bone density and aim at its increase. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two different implant osteotomy methods in terms of implant stability during the period of osseointegration in bone with low density. Material and methods: This prospective randomized clinical study included 22 patients that received a total of 37 implants in the posterior maxillary region. They were divided into two groups: in 11 patients, 18 implants were placed using the underdrilling method (UD), while the other 11 patients received 19 implants using the osseodensification method (OD). Within the OD group, 10 implants were placed with simultaneous crestal sinus floor elevation (max 5 mm) without bone graft use. All implants were placed in a dual-stage manner. The implant stability was measured through their ISQ values at the time of surgery and at the time of their uncovery, four months later. The data were analyzed using paired two-way ANOVA test and the probability value <0.0001 was considered statistically significant. Results: The early implant survival rate was 94,6%, since 35 implants were osseointegrated. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary implant stability values between the two groups. The values of secondary implant stability were significantly higher in the OD group (p<0.05). Within the OD group, there were no statistically significant differences in the secondary stability values between the implants placed with and without sinus floor elevation. Conclusion: The osseodensification method of implant osteotomy results in higher secondary implant stability values that the underdrilling method, which may have clinical relevance regarding the long-term implant survival