Clinical Outcomes of Dental Implants with Two Different Internal Connection Configurations—A RCT

Background: The aim of the present study was to highlight clinical and radiographical differences among implants sharing the same macro-geometry but with two different prosthodontic connections. Methods: Patients requiring at least 2 implants in the posterior area of the jaw were randomly divided into two groups (Conical (CS) and Internal Hexagonal (IH) connection). At implant surgery (T0), insertion torque, implant stability quotient (ISQ values recorded by resonance frequency analysis, RFA), and soft tissue thickness (STH) were assessed. A 1-abutment/1-time protocol was applied, and the prosthesis was realized following a fully digital workflow. At the 36-month follow-up periapical x-rays were taken. In order to statistically analyse differences among the two groups and the different variables, paired T-test was used. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze how marginal bone loss (MBL) was affected by other independent variables. A neural network created to predict the success (good or not good) of the implant itself was implemented. Results: 30 out of 33 patients (14 males, 16 females, mean age: 68.94 ± 13.01 years) (32 CS and 32 IH) were analyzed. No implants failed. Marginal bone loss at the 3-year time-point was 0.33 ± 0.34 mm and 0.43 ± 0.37 mm respectively for CS and IH with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.004). The presence of keratinized gingiva (p = 0.034) significantly influenced MBL. Conclusions: Both the implant connections investigated presented optimal clinical outcomes with minimal marginal bone loss; however, CS implants and implants with the presence of a greater width of keratinized tissue presented significantly lower MBL.