Volume 31, Issue S20 p. 199
ABSTRACTS
Free Access

3-year follow-up of the NobelActive implant

Alexander De Greef

Alexander De Greef

Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Greet De Mars

Greet De Mars

Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Katleen Vandamme

Katleen Vandamme

Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Wim Coucke

Wim Coucke

Scientific Institute of Public Health Section Quality of Medical Laboratories, Brussels, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Wim Teughels

Wim Teughels

Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Marc Quirynen

Marc Quirynen

Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 October 2020

XE9L4 ePOSTER CLINICAL RESEARCH – PERI-IMPLANT BIOLOGY

Background: The NobelActive implant was introduced in 2008. It was developed and designed to improve primary implant stability and to prevent marginal bone loss. Despite being on the market for more than a decade, there are only a few studies with long-term results and an overall treatment outcome for the tapered, NobelActive, implant.

Aim/Hypothesis: The purpose of this prospective, single-center study was primarily to document the bone loss, survival and success rate of this implant. Secondarily, potential predictive parameters for the bone loss were examined.

Materials and Methods: From 2011 to 2016, 306 tapered implants were installed by one surgeon, Greet De Mars. Peri-implant bone loss was measured on peri-apical radiographs, mesial and distal from the implant shoulder at implant placement, abutment connection, functional loading, at 6 months and up-to 5 years post-loading. Besides the radiographic examination, the following patient-related factors and implant procedure-related factors were taken into account: smoking, age, quality and quantity of the bone, biotype, tissue thickness, previously performed guided bone regeneration, ISQ and torque.

Results: Of the 306 implants, 7 implants did not osseointegrate. A mean bone loss of 0.21 mm (SD 0.86) was observed 12 months. The preliminary, 36-months follow-up, revealed a mean marginal bone loss of 0.18 mm (SD 0.97). Following parameters could be identified as reliable predictors for peri-implant bone loss: smoking, age, quality and quantity of the bone, biotype, tissue thickness, previously performed guided bone regeneration, ISQ and torque.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications: After an initial bone remodeling during the first months, the bone level around the NobelActive implants did only change minimally. Smoking, gingival thickness, torque values, bone quality and bone quantity influenced significantly early bone remodeling.

Keywords: NobelActive implant, bone loss, peri-implantitis, marginal bone level, predictive parameters

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.