Major Scope

  •  Colon and Rectal Surgery
  •  General Surgery
  •  Gynecologic Oncology
  •  Plastic Surgery
  •  Neurological Surgery
  •  Orthopaedic Surgery
  •  Orthopaedic Surgery of the Spine
  •  Neonatal Surgery
  •  Prenatal Surgery
  •  Trauma Surgery
  •  Surgical Intensivists, Specializing In Critical Care Patients
  •  Thoracic Surgery
  •  Congenital Cardiac Surgery
  •  Thoracic Surgery-Integrated
  •  Vascular Surgery

Abstract

Citation: Clin Surg. 2021;6(1):3322.Research Article | Open Access

A 5-Years Report from a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: Dental Implants with Conical Versus Internal Hex Connections

Tommaso Grandi1*, Maurizio Cannata2 and Rawad Samarani3

1Private Practice in Modena, Italy
2Private Practice in Rende (Cosenza), Italy
3Department of Periodontology, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon

*Correspondance to: Tommaso Grandi 

 PDF  Full Text DOI: 10.25107/2474-1647.3322

Abstract

Purpose: To compare implant failure, complications and radiographic bone level changes of dental implants with conical versus internal hex connections, 5 years after loading. Methods: A total of 90 patients with partial edentulous were selected and randomly divided into two equal groups (n=45) in order to be subjected to implant positioning either with conical connection or with internal hex connection at three dental offices. Patients were followed for a period of 5 years. Outcomes considered were implant failures, any complications and marginal bone level changes. Results: Three patients (6.7%) belonging to the conical group and one patient (2.2 %) belonging to the internal hex group dropped out. One implant (1.5%) failed in the conical group versus two implants (2.6%) in the internal hex group. There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures between the two groups (2.4% vs. 2.3%, difference 0.1%; 95% CI: -0.9; 5.1; p=0.584). Four complications occurred in the conical group and five in the internal hex group (9.5% vs. 11.4%, difference 1.9%; 95% CI: -0.7; 4.5; p=0.781). Five years after loading, patients in the conical group lost an average of 1.41 ± 0.94 peri-implant bone vs. 1.38 ± 0.89 mm for patients in the internal hex group with no significant differences between treatment group (p=0.745). Both treatment groups lost statistically significant marginal peri-implant bone at 5-year post-loading: P=0.0001 for both conical and internal hex group. Conclusion: No statistically or clinically significant differences were observed in outcomes 5 years after loading, between implants with conical and internal hex connection, hence clinicians can decide which type of connection to use according to their preferences.

Keywords

Complication; Dental implant; Conical connection; Internal hex; Peri-implant marginal bone

Cite the article

Grandi T, Cannata M, Samarani R. A 5-Years Report from a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: Dental Implants with Conical Versus Internal Hex Connections. Clin Surg. 2021; 6: 3322..

Journal Basic Info

  • Impact Factor: 2.395**
  • H-Index: 8
  • ISSN: 2474-1647
  • DOI: 10.25107/2474-1647
  • NLM ID: 101702548

Search Our Journal

Journal Indexed In

Articles in PubMed

Voice Outcomes in Laryngotracheal Stenosis: Impact of the Montgomery T-tube
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
Risk Factors for Visual Impairment in an Uninsured Population and the Impact of the Affordable Care Act
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
View More...

Articles with Grants

Long Noncoding RNA LINC00520 Accelerates the Progression of Colorectal Cancer by Serving as a Competing Endogenous RNA of Microrna-577 to Increase HSP27 Expression
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
Clinical Efficiency of Nd:YAG Laser in Reducing Orthodontic Pain
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
View More...