Evaluation of biological width around implants inserted in native alveolar crest bone

Submitted: 9 June 2017
Accepted: 9 June 2017
Published: 30 August 2009
Abstract Views: 560
PDF: 589
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Aim Biological width represents the distance necessary for a healthy existence of bone and soft tissue around teeth and/or implants. The mean value is about 3 mm and if it is compromised there is a greater probability of resorption of interproximal alveolar crest. Materials and methods A retrospective study was performed on a series of 234 Spiral family Implants (SFIs) in order to detect the minimal biological width between implants or between tooth and fixture that does not determine a crestal bone resorption. The series was split in two groups: distances ‰¤1.8 mm and ‰¥ 1.9 mm. Lost implants and crestal bone resorption around implant neck were considered as survival and success outcome and several clinical variables were matched against them by using Kaplan-Meyer and chi-square tests. Results No statistical significant difference was demonstrated between the two groups (i.e. ‰¤1.8 mm and ‰¥1.9 mm), but a clear trend over time was detected with a greater crestal bone resorption for distances ‰¤1.8 mm. Conclusion The data confirm the importance of a correct IID and add new information as regard fixtures with reverse conical neck which permits the use of a reduced IID.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Supporting Agencies

How to Cite

Danza, M., Scarano, A., Zollino, I., & Carinci, F. (2009). Evaluation of biological width around implants inserted in native alveolar crest bone. Journal of Osseointegration, 1(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.23805/jo.2009.01.02.05