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

Antimicrobial Peptides: A Potential Therapeutic Option for Surgical Site Infections
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
Sildenafil Transiently Delays Early Alveolar Bone Healing of Tooth Extraction Sockets
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
View More...

Articles with Grants

Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Leukemia: A Dilemma in Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
sefulness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Imaging and Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Malignant Soft Tissue Tumor: A Case Report
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
View More...