Analysis of implant loss risk factors after simultaneous guided bone regeneration: A retrospective study of 5404 dental implants

Self Cite

Objectives: To radiographically analyze the effects of tenting screw technique (TS) and onlay bone grafts (OG) in horizontal bone augmentation.Materials and Methods: Patients receiving horizontal bone augmentation by TS or OG were selected. The clinical outcomes and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were documented pre-grafting, immediately post-grafting, before and after implantation. The survival rates, clinical complications, alveolar bone width, and volumetric bone augmentation were evaluated and statistically analyzed.Results: A total of 25 patients and 41 implants were involved in this study, with no grafting failures observed in either the TS group (n = 20) or the onlay group (n = 21).Volumetric bone resorption rate in the TS group (21.34%) was significantly lower than that of the OG group (29.38%). In addition, significant horizontal bone gain was achieved in both groups (TS: 6.15 ± 2.12 mm; OG: 4.86 ± 1.40 mm) during the recovery period, with higher gain in the TS group. No apparent statistical difference in terms of volumetric bone gain was observed between the TS (748.53 mm 3 , 607.47 mm 3 ) and OG group (811.77 mm 3 , 508.49 mm 3 ) immediately post-grafting or after the recovery period. Conclusion:Both TS and OG achieved satisfactory bone augmentation effects, yet TS resulted in more bone augmentation and better stability than OG, with a reduced use of autogenous bone. Overall, the tenting screw technique can serve as an effective alternative to autogenous bone grafts.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographic evaluation of the tenting screw technique in horizontal alveolar bone augmentation: A retrospective study

Yang

Wang

Shen

et al. 2023

Self Cite

“…Examples of risk drivers of peri‐implant diseases incidence and progression identified in studies are: Older age 99,135 Male sex 136 Autoimmune/inflammatory/rheumatoid/skin diseases, 128 especially Sjogren's syndrome 137,138 …”

Section: Impact Of Systemic Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…99,135 • Male sex. 136 • Autoimmune/inflammatory/rheumatoid/skin diseases, 128 especially Sjogren's syndrome. 137,138 • Genetics/epigenetics.…”

Section: Other Potentially Systemic Driversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers on peri‐implant diseases

Monje

Kan

Borgnakke

2022

Background Strong evidence suggests the infectious nature of peri‐implant diseases occurring in susceptible hosts. Epidemiological reports, though, indicate that peri‐implantitis is a site‐specific entity. Hence, the significance of local factors that may predispose/precipitate plaque accumulation and the impact of systemic drivers that alter the immune response are relevant in the prevention and management of peri‐implant disorders. Purpose The purpose of the present review is to shed light on the significance of local and systemic factors on peri‐implant diseases, making special emphasis on the associations with peri‐implantitis. Methods The biologic plausibility and supporting evidence aiming at providing a concluding remark were explored in the recent scientific literature for local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers related to peri‐implant diseases. Results Local predisposing factors such as soft tissue characteristics, implant position and prosthetic design proved being strongly associated with the occurrence of peri‐implant diseases. Hard tissue characteristics, however, failed to demonstrate having a direct association with peri‐implant diseases. Robust data points toward the strong link between residual sub‐mucosal cement and peri‐implant diseases, while limited data suggests the impact of residual sub‐mucosal floss and peri‐implantitis. Systemic drivers/habits such as hyperglycemia and smoking showed a strong negative impact on peri‐implantitis. However, there is insufficient evidence to claim for any link between metabolic syndrome, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and obesity and peri‐implant diseases. Conclusion Local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers may increase the risk of peri‐implant diseases. Therefore, comprehensive anamnesis of the patients, educational/motivational programs and exhaustive prosthetically‐driven treatment planning must be fostered aiming at reducing the rate of biological complications in implant dentistry.

“…Implants placed with simultaneous GBR in the posterior mandibular region can achieve high survival rate and good peri‐implant bone stability 9 . However, our previous study showed that implant type may be associated with implant loss after simultaneous GBR 10 . Marginal bone loss (ΔMBL) around the implant is one of the important criteria for implant success, and can be detected earlier than implant loss after implant placement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 However, our previous study showed that implant type may be associated with implant loss after simultaneous GBR. 10 Marginal bone loss (ΔMBL) around the implant is one of the important criteria for implant success, and can be detected earlier than implant loss after implant placement. Numerous studies suggested that the ΔMBL of bone-level implants was significantly lower than that of tissue-level implants and had better long-term bone stability as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal bone loss of tissue‐ or bone‐level implants after simultaneous guided bone regeneration in the posterior mandibular region: A retrospective cohort study

Shen

Yang

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Purpose: To analyze the marginal bone loss (ΔMBL) of tissue-or bone-level implants after placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR).Materials and Methods: A total of 151 patients who received 104 tissue-level or 128 bone-level implants placement with simultaneous GBR in the mandibular posterior region between January 2011 and December 2016 were included in this study.The marginal bone level (MBL) was recorded using the radiographic data obtained at implant placement, second-stage surgery, and the follow-up visit. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the ΔMBL of tissue-and bone-level implants, and the influencing factors of ΔMBL were further analyzed.Results: At the last follow-up visit, the MBL of tissue-level implants was 0.73 ± 0.86 mm, above the rough-smooth interface, while that of bone-level implants was 0.82 ± 1.05 mm, above the implant platform. The ΔMBL of tissue-level implants was 1.03 mm, which was slightly higher than 0.81 mm of bone-level implants, but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). No contributing factor associated with ΔMBL was identified by multivariate regression analysis in this study. Conclusion:Within the limits of this retrospective analysis, the ΔMBL of tissue-level implants is similar to that of bone-level implants after placed with simultaneous GBR, and both types of implants can achieve desirable marginal bone stability.