Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, "Vasile Goldiş" Western University of Arad, Arad, Romania.
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Mich.
J Oral Implantol. 2021 Dec 1;47(6):485-490. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00160.
Different types of internal implant-abutment connections, namely hexagon and conical, have been used for implant restoration. However, data regarding the benefits of these internal connections in terms of clinical outcomes are scarce. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) and associated implant complications between implants with internal hexagon (IH) connections and those with internal conical (IC) connections. Forty-nine patients with 98 implants (2 per patient) placed in the posterior mandible were recruited. All implants were inserted in pairs into solid D2 bone according to a randomized sequence; the first patient received an IH connection implant on the mesial side, while the second patient received an IC connection implant on the mesial side. Each patient received 1 implant with an IH connection and 1 with an IC connection, placed side by side. Four months after placement, all implants were loaded with single screw-retained ceramic restorations with IH or IC connections. RMBL and complications, including implant/prosthesis failure, were recorded at the time of implant loading (baseline) and at 6, 12, and 36 months after loading. The results revealed no significant between-group differences in RMBL (P = .74), gingival bleeding on probing (P = .29), and complications (P = .32). Thus, the type of internal implant-abutment connection did not affect clinical outcomes, including RMBL and implant/prosthesis failure. Future studies should additionally evaluate long-term prosthesis-related complications, such as screw loosening and fracture, between the 2 types of internal connections.
不同类型的种植体-基台内部连接，即六角和锥形，已被用于种植体修复。然而，关于这些内部连接在临床结果方面的益处的数据很少。因此，本研究的目的是比较具有内部六角（IH）连接和内部锥形（IC）连接的种植体的放射学边缘骨吸收（RMBL）和相关种植体并发症。招募了 49 名患者的 98 枚种植体（每个患者 2 枚），这些种植体均根据随机序列植入下颌后牙的固体 D2 骨中；第一位患者在近中侧植入 IH 连接种植体，第二位患者在近中侧植入 IC 连接种植体。每位患者同侧植入 1 枚 IH 连接种植体和 1 枚 IC 连接种植体。植入 4 个月后，所有种植体均采用 IH 或 IC 连接的单螺钉固位陶瓷修复体负载。在种植体负载（基线）时以及负载后 6、12 和 36 个月时，记录 RMBL 和并发症，包括种植体/修复体失败。结果显示，在 RMBL（P =.74）、探诊时的牙龈出血（P =.29）和并发症（P =.32）方面，两组之间无显著差异。因此，种植体-基台内部连接类型不会影响临床结果，包括 RMBL 和种植体/修复体失败。未来的研究还应评估两种内部连接之间长期与修复体相关的并发症，如螺钉松动和断裂。
