Clinical analysis of the soft tissue integration of non-submerged (ITI) and submerged (3i) implants: a prospective-controlled cohort study

Journal Article

Print(0)

Clinical oral implants research

Clin.Oral Implants Res.

Oct

991

996

JID: 9105713; 0 (Dental Implants); 68238-35-7 (Keratins); ppublish

Denmark

1600-0501; 0905-7161

PMID: 18828814

eng

Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; D

10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01345.x [doi]

Unknown(0)

18828814

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue integration of submerged and non-submerged implants by means of periodontal parameter assessments and analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients, who received 42 non-submerged implants (ITI) and 48 submerged implants (3i), participated in the study. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between both groups considering gender; educational level; handedness; toothbrushing frequency; the number of auxiliary devices used; and smoking habits. The parameters assessed were gingival index (GI), plaque index (PII), retention index (RI), pocket probing depth (PPD) and keratinized mucosa index. RESULTS: At evaluation, 66.67% of all sites showed a GI of 0; 72.22% a PI of 0, and 93.33% the absence of calculus. The average PPD was 2.56 mm in the non-submerged and 2.70 mm in the submerged group. With regard to the width of keratinized mucosa, 100% of the ITI implants showed a band of keratinized gingiva around the implant, whereas 14.58% in the 3i group showed a complete absence of keratinized mucosa. The intra-examiner reproducibility was 90.96% for all parameters and the Kendall tau-b analysis showed a powerless correlation between the chosen parameters for both studied groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study material showed no major differences between submerged and non-submerged dental implants regarding GI, PII, RI and PPD, except the width of keratinized mucosa. Regarding the presence of keratinized mucosa, there is a need for further longitudinal studies to elucidate a possible benefit of one implant system over the other.

Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cohort Studies, Dental Devices, Home Care, Dental Implantation, Endosseous/methods, Dental Implants, Dental Plaque Index, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis Retention, Educational Status, Female, Functional Laterality, Gingiva/pathology, Humans, Keratins, Male, Middle Aged, Periodontal Index, Periodontal Pocket/classification, Periodontium/physiopathology, Prospective Studies, Smoking, Toothbrushing, Young Adult

Garcia,R. V., Kraehenmann,M. A., Bezerra,F. J., Mendes,C. M., Rapp,G. E.

School of Dentistry of the Federal University of Bahia, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. rvgarcia@uol.com.br

http://vp9py7xf3h.search.serialssolutions.com/?charset=utf-8&pmid=18828814

2008