TY - JOUR
T1 - Internal- vs external-connection single implants: A retrospective study in an italian population treated by certified prosthodontists
AU - Vigolo, Paolo
AU - Gracis, Stefano
AU - Carboncini, Fabio
AU - Mutinelli, Sabrina
AU - Andreoni, Dario
AU - Farina, Aldo Anglesio
AU - Bombardelli, Tiziano
AU - Bovera, Michele
AU - Bravi, Fabrizio
AU - Buzzo, Maurizio
AU - Casella, Pierluigi
AU - Cortellini, Davide
AU - Fabbri, Giacomo
AU - Fuzzi, Massimo
AU - Granata, Stefano
AU - Manfrini, Giovanni
AU - Manicone, Paolo Francesco
AU - Micarelli, Costanza
AU - Noè, Gaetano
AU - Palazzoli, Gaetano
AU - Risciotti, Emanuele
AU - Schmitz, Johannes
AU - Sighel, Luca
AU - Simeone, Piero
AU - Solmi, Mauro
AU - Tonello, Mattia
AU - Valenti, Marco
AU - Venezia, Pietro
AU - Zaccaria, Massimiliano
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose: The design of an implant connection that allows prosthetic suprastructures to be attached to implants has long been debated in the dental literature. The goal of this retrospective study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical results for a large number of single implants restored by certified prosthodontists in an attempt to establish whether different clinical outcomes could be detected for external- or internalconnection implants. Materials and Methods: All single implants with internal or external connections inserted in 27 private dental practices from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 were evaluated. An initial statistical analysis was performed to describe the sample population at baseline and then to compare the two types of implant-abutment connection configurations and their clinical outcomes. All data were statistically analyzed with STATA12 (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-eight of the 85 active members of the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP) participated in this study. The sample included 1,159 patients and 2,010 implants. Of the implants, 75 were dropped because there was no information about follow-up. Of the remaining implants, 1,431 (74.0%) were followed for at least 5 years, and 332 implants (17.2%) were followed for more than 8 years. Nearly 99% (98.9%) of the implants survived. The difference between the survival frequencies of the two types of implant-abutment connection configurations was not significant for each negative event (log-rank test, P > .05). There was no difference between the two types of implants regarding restoration fracture, implant screw loosening, and peri-implant disease. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be suggested that there is no difference in clinical outcomes of single restorations joined to internal- or external-connection implants.
AB - Purpose: The design of an implant connection that allows prosthetic suprastructures to be attached to implants has long been debated in the dental literature. The goal of this retrospective study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical results for a large number of single implants restored by certified prosthodontists in an attempt to establish whether different clinical outcomes could be detected for external- or internalconnection implants. Materials and Methods: All single implants with internal or external connections inserted in 27 private dental practices from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 were evaluated. An initial statistical analysis was performed to describe the sample population at baseline and then to compare the two types of implant-abutment connection configurations and their clinical outcomes. All data were statistically analyzed with STATA12 (StataCorp). Results: Twenty-eight of the 85 active members of the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP) participated in this study. The sample included 1,159 patients and 2,010 implants. Of the implants, 75 were dropped because there was no information about follow-up. Of the remaining implants, 1,431 (74.0%) were followed for at least 5 years, and 332 implants (17.2%) were followed for more than 8 years. Nearly 99% (98.9%) of the implants survived. The difference between the survival frequencies of the two types of implant-abutment connection configurations was not significant for each negative event (log-rank test, P > .05). There was no difference between the two types of implants regarding restoration fracture, implant screw loosening, and peri-implant disease. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be suggested that there is no difference in clinical outcomes of single restorations joined to internal- or external-connection implants.
KW - External-connection implant
KW - Internal-connection implant
KW - Medicine (all)
KW - Single implant restoration
KW - External-connection implant
KW - Internal-connection implant
KW - Medicine (all)
KW - Single implant restoration
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/96065
UR - http://jomi.quintessenz.de/942e/jomi_2016_06_s1385.pdf
U2 - 10.11607/jomi.4618
DO - 10.11607/jomi.4618
M3 - Article
SN - 0882-2786
VL - 31
SP - 1385
EP - 1396
JO - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
JF - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
ER -