Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35841488›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Impact of machined versus structured implant shoulder designs on crestal bone level changes: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study.

Daniel Rothamel, Maria Heinz, Daniel Ferrari, Alfons Eissing, Henrik Holtmann, Lara Schorn, Tim Fienitz

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel RothamelDepartment of Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Maria HeinzDepartment of Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Daniel FerrariPrivate Practice for Dentistry, Heinrichstraße 83-85, 40239, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Alfons EissingPrivate Practice for Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Pestalozzistraße 1B, 49808, Lingen, Germany.
Henrik HoltmannDepartment of Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bethesda, Ludwig-Weber-Str. 15, 41061, Mönchengladbach, Germany.
Lara SchornDepartment of Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. Lara.Schorn@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4301-0693
Tim FienitzDepartment of Oral-, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe collar region of an implant is its connection to the oral cavity. A balance between osseointegration on one hand and the absence of plaque accumulation on the other hand is necessary for successful implantation. It is yet to be determined which implant collar design, polished or rough, is best to stabilize the crestal bone level, avoiding peri-implantitis and subsequent risk of implant loss. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the architecture of the collar region on marginal bone and soft tissue response.

methodsThis prospective, randomized, clinically controlled multicenter study included 58 patients undergoing dental implant treatment using a pair of dental implants with either machined or rough-surfaced shoulder regions. Patients were clinically and radiologically examined for bone level height and signs of inflammation after 6, 12 and 24 months.

resultsNo implant was lost within the 2 years of follow-up (100% survival rate). No significant differences on crestal bone loss (machined neck: 0.61 mm ± 0.28 mm, rough neck 0.58 mm ± 0.24 mm) and on soft tissue response (probing depth 3-6 mm with bleeding on probing 7.6% in machined-neck implants and in 8.3% in rough neck implants) were observed between implants with machined and roughened neck after 2 years.

conclusionsMachined and roughened neck implants achieved equally good results concerning peri-implant bone loss, the rate of peri-implantitis and implant survival rate/hard and soft tissue integration. None of the two collar designs showed a clear advantage in peri-implant reaction. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DKRS00029033. Registered 09 May 2022-Retrospectively registered, http://www.dkrs.de.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Prosthesis DesignHumansProspective StudiesShoulderSurface PropertiesDental ImplantsImplant designMachined vs. rough implant collarPeri-implant bone levelPeri-implantitis

Identifiers

PMID35841488
PMCPMC9288572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.