Artigo de Periódico
Clinical analysis of the soft tissue integration of non-submerged (ITI) and submerged (3i) implants: a prospectivecontrolled cohort study
Fecha
2008Registro en:
0905-7161
v. 19, n. 10
Autor
Garcia, Ricardo Vieira
Kraehenmann, Michael Alexander
Bezerra, Fábio José Barbosa
Mendes, Carlos Maurício Cardeal
Rapp, Gisela Estela
Garcia, Ricardo Vieira
Kraehenmann, Michael Alexander
Bezerra, Fábio José Barbosa
Mendes, Carlos Maurício Cardeal
Rapp, Gisela Estela
Institución
Resumen
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue integration of submerged and
non-submerged implants by means of periodontal parameter assessments and analysis.Material and methods: Thirty-one patients, who received 42 non-submerged implants (ITI) and 48 submerged implants (3i), participated in the study. There was no significant difference (P40.05) between both groups considering gender; educational level; handedness; toothbrushing frequency; the number of auxiliary devices used; and smoking habits. The parameters assessed were gingival index (GI), plaque index (PII), retention index (RI), pocket probing depth (PPD) and keratinized mucosa index.
Results: At evaluation, 66.67% of all sites showed a GI of 0; 72.22% a PI of 0, and 93.33% the absence of calculus. The average PPD was 2.56mm in the non-submerged and 2.70mm in the submerged group. With regard to the width of keratinized mucosa, 100% of the ITI implants showed a band of keratinized gingiva around the implant, whereas 14.58% in the
3i group showed a complete absence of keratinized mucosa. The intra-examiner
reproducibility was 90.96% for all parameters and the Kendall tau-b analysis showed a powerless correlation between the chosen parameters for both studied groups.
Conclusions: The study material showed no major differences between submerged and
non-submerged dental implants regarding GI, PII, RI and PPD, except the width of
keratinized mucosa. Regarding the presence of keratinized mucosa, there is a need for
further longitudinal studies to elucidate a possible benefit of one implant system over the other.