Marginal bone level changes in association with different vertical implant positions: a 3-year retrospective study

Marginal Bone Loss in Internal Conical Connection Implants Placed at the Crestal and Subcrestal Levels before Prosthetic Loading: A Randomized Clinical Study

The vertical position concerning the bone in which the implants are placed has been related as one of the factors causing marginal bone loss. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bone loss that occurs before prosthetic loading around tapered internal connection (CIC) implants placed at the crestal (C) and subcrestal (S) levels. Method: A randomized clinical trial (RCT) was carried out, with a sample size of 62 implants placed in 27 patients who underwent radiological controls on the day of placement, at one month, and at 4 months, and stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) on three occasions. Results: Bone loss in implants C and S from the time of placement (T0) and the month after (T1) was not significant (p = 0.54) (C = 0.19 mm and S = 0.15 mm). The difference between one month (T1) and four months (T2) (C = 0.17 mm and S = 0.22 mm) was not significant either (p = 0.26). The difference between the day of placement (T0) and the third and last measurement (T2) was almost null (p = 0.94) (C = 0.35 mm and S = 0.36). The overall success rate of the implants was 97.8%. The stability of the implants measured with RFA went from 70.60 (T0) to 73.16 (T1) and 74.52 (T2). Conclusions: No significant differences were found in the bone loss for implants placed at the C and S levels. The millimeters of bone loss detected in both vertical positions did not have a significant impact on the stability of the implants.

Immediately loaded implants simultaneously placed in fresh extraction and healed sites supporting four-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses using the all-on-4 concept: A 5-year prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone level for immediately loaded implants placed simultaneously in both fresh extraction sites (FES) and healed sites (HS) supporting a 4-implant supported mandibular fixed prosthesis (4-ISFMP) using the all-on-4 concept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 5-year prospective study was conducted in 24 patients (96 implants) treated with 4-ISFMP including 55 implants inserted in FES and 41 implants in HS. At implant placement (baseline) and at the 1^st -, 3^rd - and 5^th -year follow-up examinations, peri-implant marginal bone level was evaluated radiographically and compared between placement in FES and HS. Marginal bone loss was calculated as the difference in the marginal bone level evaluated at the follow-up periods. Additionally, implant and prosthesis survival rates as well as the presence of peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing+[BOP]) and peri-implantitis (BOP+ >2 mm MBL) were evaluated.

RESULTS

22/24 patients with 88/96 implants (dropout rate: 8.3%) were continually followed for 5 years (survival rate: 100%). Radiographically measured marginal bone level differed significantly between FES and HS at implant placement (1.46 ± 0.80 mm vs. 0.60 ± 0.70 mm; p < .001), at the 1-year (-0.04 ± 0.14 mm vs. -0.18 ± 0.20 mm; p = .002) and 3-year (-0.26 ± 0.49 mm vs. -0.58 ± 0.48 mm, p = .049), but not at the 5-year evaluation (-0.90 ± 0.66 mm vs. -1.00 ± 0.59 mm, p = .361). The marginal bone loss differed significantly (p < .001) between FES and HS between implant placement and the 1-year evaluation but not for the 1- to 3-year (p > .99) and the 3- to 5-year period (p = .082). At the 5-year follow-up evaluation, no implant/prosthesis failed (100% survival) and peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were noted in 41.2% and 11.7% at patient level and in 17.6% and 4.5% at implant level respectively.

CONCLUSION

Implants placed in FES showed a prolonged peri-implant remodelling process but provided for similar peri-implant marginal bone levels as implants placed in HS at the 5-year evaluation for immediately loaded 4-ISFMP.

Aesthetic Outcomes and Peri-Implant Health of Angled Screw Retained Implant Restorations Compared with Cement Retained Crowns: Medium Term Follow-Up

Single tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic area are a demanding challenge. If a complete osseointegration is mandatory, the final result has to result in a higher standard of biomimetic and soft tissue health among natural teeth. This outcome is traditionally pursued by cementing crowns over individualized abutments. However, in recent years, the need for controlling peri-implant health and the preference towards a retrievable solution has led to an increase in screw-retained crowns, which is not always applicable when the implant axis is not ideal. In the aesthetic area, the use of a novel technical solution represented by the angled screw channel (ASC) of the abutment has been proposed in order to match the advantages of the screwed solution with the aesthetic demands. The aim of this study was to compare ASC crowns to cemented crowns (CC) in single implant restorations using the white esthetic score (WES) and pink esthetic score (PES) at the crown delivery and at a follow-up of a minimum of 2 years. Peri-implant health and marginal bone loss (MBL) were also evaluated. The mean follow-up was 44.3 months, with a mean MBL of 0.22 mm in the ASC group and 0.29 mm in the CC group. The total WES/PES score was 16.6 for ASC, compared with 17.3 for CC at baseline, and 16.2 and 17.1, respectively, at follow-up. Both of the groups reached a high WES/PES, and this was maintained over time, without signs of peri-implant diseases or bone loss, regardless of the choice of connection. In conclusion, ASC can be adopted in cases where the implant axis is not ideal, with aesthetic and functional results that are comparable to implants restored by cemented crowns.

Comparison of Success Rate of Dental Implants Placed in Autogenous Bone Graft Regenerated Areas and Pristine Bone

Autogenous bone grafting still has been considered as the "gold standard" and wildly used in the case of alveolar bone reconstruction. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the success rate of implants placed in autogenous block augmented ridges and implants placed in pristine bone (PB). This study included 113 patients. Fifty-three patients were treated with autogenous block grafts and particulate bone, after 6 months of healing implant placements were performed in autogenous bone augmented (ABA) areas. In 60 patients implant placement was performed, with no need for grafting and implants were placed into the PB. Follow-up data (pain, mobility, exudation from peri-implant space, success rate, marginal bone resorption) were collected after 5 years of prosthetic loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 5-year examination was 92.45% for the ABA group and 85% for PB group. There were 3 failed implants in the ABA group and 3 in PB group. Average marginal bone loss was 1.47 mm on ABA group and 1.58 mm on PB group. No statistically significant differences for pain, exudation from peri-implant space, implant mobility, implant success, peri-implant bone loss parameters, and patient satisfaction level were found between groups. The obtained data demonstrated that the success rate of implants placed in regenerated areas are very similar to the success rate of implants those placed in PB.

Factors Influencing Primary and Secondary Implant Stability—A Retrospective Cohort Study with 582 Implants in 272 Patients

The success rate of dental implants depends on primary and secondary stability. We investigate predictive factors for future risk stratification models. We retrospectively analyze 272 patients with a total of 582 implants. Implant stability is measured with resonance frequency analysis and evaluated based on the implant stability quotient (ISQ). A linear regression model with regression coefficients (reg. coeff.) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) is applied to assess predictive factors for implant stability. Implant diameter (reg. coeff.: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.89–4.66, p < 0.001), implant length (reg. coeff.: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.26–1.08, p < 0.001), and implant localization (maxillary vs. mandibular, reg. coeff.: −7.45, 95% CI: −8.70–(−6.20), p < 0.001) are significant prognostic factors for primary implant stability. An increase in ISQ between insertion and exposure is significantly correlated with healing time (reg. coeff.: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04–0.19). Patients with maxillary implants have lower ISQ at insertion but show a higher increase in ISQ after insertion than patients with mandibular implants. We observe positive associations between primary implant stability and implant diameter, implant length, and localization (mandibular vs. maxillary). An increase in implant stability between insertion and exposure is significantly correlated with healing time and is higher for maxillary implants. These predictive factors should be further evaluated in prospective cohort studies to develop future preoperative risk-stratification models.

Marginal bone loss around oral implants supporting fixed versus removable prostheses: a systematic review

Aim

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants of fixed (FISP) versus removable implant-supported prosthesis (RISP).

Material and methods

This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of the literature on Web of Science and Ovid (MEDLINE) was conducted in March 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials/quasi-randomized trials, prospective and retrospective studies written in German and English. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and performed an independent data extraction. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence of the included studies.

Results

The search resulted in 2577 studies, of which 42 were selected for full-text evaluation. Finally, six studies were included in qualitative analyses, reporting results from 248 participants (81 FISP versus 167 RISP). Five of the included studies were prospective and one study was retrospective. MBL was highest in the first year after implant placement and ranged from 0.17 ± 0.07 mm to 2.1 ± 1.6 mm in FISP and from 0.22 ± 0.55 mm to 2.5 ± 2.7 mm in RISP. After 4 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups; MBL ranged from 0.36 ± 0.22 mm to 1.5 mm in FISP and 0.56 ± 0.45 mm to 1.4 mm in RISP. Of the six included studies, two each were rated as good quality, fair quality, and poor quality.

Conclusion

Fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses seem to have similar long-term outcomes regarding marginal bone loss. However, the evidence provided in this systematic review is limited due to the poor quality of two of the included studies. Future studies with study designs specified to the topic of this review are necessary to provide clear information about marginal bone level alterations in modern implant therapy.

Survival and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants Supporting Cad-Cam Angled Channel Restorations: A Split-Mouth Retrospective Study

Objective  The aim of this study was to determine whether the screw emergence angulation correction by computer-aided design (CAD)-computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) can influence implant survival and marginal bone stability.

Materials and Methods  This was a controlled split-mouth retrospective study of angled channel restorations. The dental implants supporting the prosthesis were divided into the following two groups: the first group (Group 1) included the implants that required screw channel angulation, while the second group (Group 2) included the implants that did not require this correction to screw the prosthesis to the implant. The main outcome variables were implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL).

Results  A total of 68 dental implants placed in 22 patients were included in the final cohort. The mean follow-up time was 39.65 ± 15.20 months. None of the studied implants failed during the follow-up period and the mean MBL was − 0.29 ± 0.51 mm at the end of the follow-up. No statistical differences in the MBL were observed between the two groups of the study (-0.18 ± 0.51 and − 0.23 ± 0.58 mm, respectively).

Conclusion  The angulation of the screw channel with CAD-CAM technology resulted in good clinical outcomes and did not affect MBL. Thus, the angulated screw channel might be considered an alternative to face undesired screw emergencies. Future prospective clinical studies should confirm these results.

Effect of Implant-Abutment Connection Type on Bone Around Dental Implants in Long-Term Observation: Internal Cone Versus Internal Hex

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the implant-abutment connection type on the bone level around dental implants in long-term observation and the survival rate for the different types of implant-abutment connections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of implants made of titanium grade 23 alloy and with sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface were included in the study: (a) the internal hex implant-abutment connection group (480 SPI dental implants; Alpha-Bio Tec, Petach Tikwa, Israel, 184 patients) and (b) the internal cone implant-abutment connection group (60 C1 dental implants; MIS Implant Technologies, Shlomi, Israel, 34 patients). Certain inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Marginal bone loss (MBL) around the dental implants was measured in intraoral radiographs taken with parallel technique with a film holder and by bite recording index. X-rays were performed at the moment of functional loading, and at 12, 24, 36, and 60 months after loading. The digital analysis was conducted using Dental Studio 2.0 computer software.

RESULTS

Average MBL was significantly lower in the conical connection compared with internal hex group-0.68 ± 0.59 versus 0.99 ± 0.89 mm (12 months), 0.78 ± 0.80 versus 1.12 ± 1.00 mm (24 months), 0.83 ± 0.87 versus 1.22 ± 1.03 mm (36 months), and 0.96 ± 1.02 versus 1.30 ± 1.15 mm (60 months after loading). Both groups of implants achieved a 100% survival rate.

CONCLUSION

The internal cone connection reduced bone resorption compared with the internal hex. Both groups of implants had a 100% survival rate.

Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies.