Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure
- 14 August 2002
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Clinical Oral Implants Research
- Vol. 13 (4), 371-380
- https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Radiographic Evaluation of Bone Healing Around Submerged and Non‐Submerged Dental Implants in Beagle DogsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1999
- Microbiota of Successful Osseointegrated Dental ImplantsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1999
- Porphyromonas gingivalis in an edentulous proband. A case-reportJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1998
- Non‐submerged implants in the treatment of the edentulous lower jaw. A 2‐year longitudinal study.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1996
- Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Brånemark system® implant componentsClinical Oral Implants Research, 1996
- The effect of periodontal parameters on the subgingival microbiota around implantsClinical Oral Implants Research, 1995
- Osseointegration of Brånemark fixtures using a single‐step operating technique. A preliminary prospective one‐year study in the edentulous mandible.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1995
- A comparison of methods to assess marginal bone height around endosseous implantsJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1993
- Microbiological features of stable osseointegrated implants used as abutments for overdenturesClinical Oral Implants Research, 1990
- A classification of the edentulous jawsInternational Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 1988