Does a Novel Trioval Implant Connection Lead to Better Marginal Bone Levels Compared to Control at Three Months Post-Surgery?
Introduction
Peri-implant crestal bone remodeling can lead to an expected reduction in marginal bone levels in the first year of function. Several innovative approaches have been proposed to minimize the initial bone loss commonly observed during this period after osteotomy, with the goal of preventing long-term aesthetic and functional compromise. This pilot study aimed to compare the radiographically-assessed crestal remodeling of a novel trioval implant to a standard internal hex conical connection at 3 months post-surgery to derive sample size calculations for a definitive trial.
KEY RESULTS
- Baseline patient and implant characteristics, including mean implant size were comparable between the two groups.
- Mean bone loss observed in the test group was 0.16 ± 0.21 mm compared to 0.61 ± 0.19 mm in control group. Initial bone remodeling was, on average, reduced in the trioval group by 0.45 mm, but as expected for pilot trials, the results were not statistically significant.
- An excellent (ICC=0.983) inter-examiner agreement was attained using a standardized digital methodology, measuring bone change at 0.5 mm horizontally from the implant margin.
CITATION
Presented at the 31st Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (IAO-EA-SIdP Joint Meeting), October 24 – 26, 2024.
Scott J, Jones O, Atkins S, Milner R, Elbarbary S, Oxley C, Bolt R. (October 2024) IAO-EAO-SIdP 2024-808/PO-SU-079 | Does a Novel Trioval Implant Connection Lead to Better Marginal Bone Levels Compared to Control at Three Months Post-Surgery? E-Poster. Clin Oral Impl Res; Volume 35, Issue S28; p292 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14366
REFERENCES
1. Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2018 Jun;45:S278-85.
2. Velikov S, Susin C, Heuberger P, Irastorza-Landa A. A New Site Preparation Protocol That Supports Bone Quality Evaluation and Provides Predictable Implant Insertion Torque. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2).
3. Yin X, Li J, Hoffmann W, Gasser A, Brunski JB, Helms JA. Mechanical and Biological Advantages of a Tri-Oval Implant Design. J Clin Med. 2019;8(4):1-13.
Authors
Questions
Ask a questioninnovation for innovations sake
A tri-oval connection that can not accomodate attachment of a 1-piece healing collar makes absolutely no sense. The N1 implant has a smooth, anodized neck. If you positioned tht 1mm supra-crestal to provide an undisturbed zone of attached gingiva, following the On-1 principal, you would further reduce bone loss.
A tri-oval connection that can not accomodate attachment of a 1-piece healing collar makes absolutely no sense. The N1 implant has a smooth, anodized neck. If you positioned tht 1mm supra-crestal to provide an undisturbed zone of attached gingiva, following the On-1 principal, you would further reduce bone loss.
The trilobe connection is an old design. I believe that there was some problem with breakage of the implant connection part in the weakest (thinnest) part of the lobes. I do not whether misfit connections with the abutment connector, common to the screw-in installation system, was somewhat responsible for the premature failure of the implants. I suspect that misfit connections might have contributed to the observed breakage, as these and other connectors were not designed to be connected in a misfit way.
I must apologize - trioval connection is not the same as the tri-lobed connection. However, the comments are the same - were these abutment-crown complexes screwed-in or were the abutments screwed-in before the crowns were cemented? This was not clear. If screwed -in, then the dentist will have needed to somehow manage several paths of insertion determined by adjacent teeth, the implant screw channel and abutment connector ... all within the fit-tolerances of the connections (unknown), while adjusting contacts and displacing adjacent tissues. This is tough to impossible for even a single crown, unless the fitting parts are really sloppy.
What are the specific features of the trioval implant connection that differentiate it from traditional designs?
As moderator of comments, perhaps one of the authors would like to respond to the comments.
Why not measure bone loss without attached crown andwhy only 3 months?
There are 3 roots causes of implant-abutment misfits related prosthesis (crown) installation that can make the comparison of connection types difficult to interpret. In this experiment researchers may have hve erroneously assumed that they have optimized the fit of their connectors. As well, what were the fit torances of the connectors? If they were different, the possible “more bone loss” may have been due to a sloppier fit of parts rathere than onnector design. Is it not time for manufacturers to disclose the fit tolerances of their parts??https://reversemargin.com/making-the-screw-in-prosthesis-installation-s…
There are 3 roots causes of implant-abutment misfits related prosthesis (crown) installation that can make the comparison of connection types difficult to interpret. In this experiment researchers may have hve erroneously assumed that they have optimized the fit of their connectors.
As well, what were the fit torances of the connectors? If they were different, the possible “more bone loss” may have been due to a sloppier fit of parts rathere than onnector design. Is it not time for manufacturers to disclose the fit tolerances of their parts??
https://reversemargin.com/making-the-screw-in-prosthesis-installation-system-safer/