References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. One-stage versus two-stage implant placement. A Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009; Summer;2(2):91–9.
Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23:971–3.
Flores-Guillen J, Álvarez-Novoa C, Barbieri G, Martín C, Sanz M. Five-year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing bone-level implants with either submerged or transmucosal healing. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(1):125–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12832 Epub 2017 Nov 17.
Cecchinato D, Bengazi F, Blasi G, Botticelli D, Cardarelli I, Gualini F. Bone level alterations at implants placed in the posterior segments of the dentition: outcome of submerged/non-submerged healing. A 5-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2008;19:429–31.
Siadat H, Panjnoosh M, Alikhasi M, Alihoseini M, Bassir SH, Rokn AR. Does implant staging choice affect crestal bone loss? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(2):307–13.
Gheisari R, Eatemadi H, Alavian A. Comparison of the marginal bone loss in one-stage versus two-stage implant surgery. J Dent (Shiraz). 2017;18(4):272–6.
Hermann, J.S, Cochran, D.L., Nummikoski, P.V. & Buser, D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 1117–1130.
Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Impl Res. 1993;4:158–61.
Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt Å, Dahlen G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Brånemark systemA implant components. Clin Oral Impl Res. 1996;7:90–5.
Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter E-J. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant–abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Impl. 1997;12:527–40.
Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res. 2003;82:232–7.
Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a systematic review. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2009;20(Suppl. 4):207–15.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Introduction : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [4]
- Materials and methods : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [5]
- Results : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- Discussion : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- Conclusions : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Availability of data and materials : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [1]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [2]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [3]
- References : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas [4]
- Acknowledgments : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Funding : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Author information : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Ethics declarations : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Additional information : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Rights and permissions : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- About this article : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas
- Table 1 Demographic data of patients, implants position, and type of implant : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single
- Table 2 Distribution of each implant in each group : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in
- Table 3 Differences in number of sites with plaque and bleeding on probing (BOP) between the two groups during the follow-up period (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, P > 0.05) : Clinical and radiographics
- Table 4 Patients’ full-mouth periodontal probing depth (FMPPD), full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), and full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS) recorded during the follow-up period : Clinical and radiographics
- Fig. 1. Example of the location of a non-submerged implant, bone, and adjacent tooth : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 2. Example of the location of a submerged implant, bone, and adjacent tooth : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 3. Implants used in the present study and laser-microtextured intramucosal surface (original magnification × 800) : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 4. Schematic view of radiographic measurement references : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 5. Mean values of probing depth (PD) between the two groups during the follow-up period. ANOVA test P > 0.05 : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 6. Mean values of gingival recession (REC) between the two groups at the end of follow-up period (3-year). ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 7. Changes of CBL (mm) between the two groups in sites with KKT > 2 and ≤ 2 mm. ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant
- Fig. 8. Mean values of crestal bone loss (CBL) between the two groups during the follow-up period. ANOVA test : Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implant