Bone remodeling around dental implants after 1–1.5 years of functional loading: A retrospective analysis of two‐stage implants

Maghsoudi, Poyan; Slot, Dagmar Else; Weijden, F. van der

doi:10.1002/cre2.574

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average follow-up of the IA sets among the patients included in the study was 22.7 months, in which different clinical parameters were evaluated and their relationship with the stability of the marginal bone tissue. Our results showed an average bone remodeling around these IA sets of −0.67 ± 0.65 mm in mesial and −0.70 ± 0.63 mm in distal, corroborating other studies that evaluated implants in similar conditions and time [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Thus, bone loss around implants, regardless of the connection method, appears to be a physiological process.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Marginal Bone Level and Biomechanical Behavior of Titanium-Indexed Abutment Base of Conical Connection Used for Single Ceramic Crowns on Morse-Taper Implant: A Clinical Retrospective Study

Gehrke

Cortellari

Fernandes

et al. 2023

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the behavior of Morse-taper indexed abutments by analyzing the marginal bone level (MBL) after at least 12 months of function. Patients rehabilitated with single ceramic crowns between May 2015 and December 2020 received single Morse-taper connection implants (DuoCone implant) with two-piece straight abutment baseT used for at least 12 months, presenting periapical radiograph immediately after crown installation were enrolled. The position of the rehabilitated tooth and arch (maxilla or mandible), crown installation period, implant dimensions, abutment transmucosal height, installation site (immediate implant placement or healed area), associated with bone regeneration, immediate provisionalization, and complications after installation of the final crown were analyzed. The initial and final MBL was evaluated by comparing the initial and final X-rays. The level of significance was α = 0.05. Seventy-five patients (49 women and 26 men) enrolled had a mean period of evaluation of 22.7 ± 6.2 months. Thirty-one implant-abutment (IA) sets had between 12–18 months, 34 between 19–24 months, and 44 between 25–33 months. Only one patient failed due to an abutment fracture after 25 months of function. Fifty-eight implants were placed in the maxilla (53.2%) and 51 in the mandible (46.8%). Seventy-four implants were installed in healed sites (67.9%), and 35 were in fresh socket sites (32.1%). Thirty-two out of these 35 implants placed in fresh sockets had the gap filled with bone graft particles. Twenty-six implants received immediate provisionalization. The average MBL was −0.67 ± 0.65 mm in mesial and −0.70 ± 0.63 mm in distal (p = 0.5072). The most important finding was the statistically significant difference comparing the values obtained for MBL between the abutments with different transmucosal height portions, which were better for abutments with heights greater than 2.5 mm. Regarding the abutments’ diameter, 58 had 3.5 mm (53.2%) and 51 had 4.5 mm (46.8%). There was no statistical difference between them, with the following means and standard deviation, respectively, −0.57 ± 0.53 mm (mesial) and −0.66 ± 0.50 mm (distal), and −0.78 ± 0.75 mm (mesial) and −0.746 ± 0.76 mm (distal). Regarding the implant dimensions, 24 implants were 3.5 mm (22%), and 85 implants (78%) had 4.0 mm. In length, 51 implants had 9 mm (46.8%), 25 had 11 mm (22.9%), and 33 implants were 13 mm (30.3%). There was no statistical difference between the abutment diameters (p > 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, it was possible to conclude that better behavior and lesser marginal bone loss were observed when using abutment heights greater than 2.5 mm of transmucosal portion and when placed implants with 13 mm length. Furthermore, this type of abutment showed a little incidence of failures within the period analyzed in our study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Marginal Bone Level and Biomechanical Behavior of Titanium-Indexed Abutment Base of Conical Connection Used for Single Ceramic Crowns on Morse-Taper Implant: A Clinical Retrospective Study

Gehrke

Cortellari

Fernandes

et al. 2023

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and N.H.M.A. ), 11 studies were eligible for full‐text review 21,22,24–26,35–40 . Seven studies 25,35–40 were subsequently excluded and as a result four studies 21,22,24,26 were included in the present review (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), 11 studies were eligible for full-text review. 21,22,[24][25][26][35][36][37][38][39][40] Seven studies 25,[35][36][37][38][39][40] were subsequently excluded and as a result four studies 21,22,24,26 were included in the present review (Table 2). One of the main reasons for excluding studies was the unfortunate lack of response from corresponding authors when additional information was requested.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Study Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Atieh

Shah

Ameen

et al. 2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplant restorative emergence angle and profile may have a negative impact on peri‐implant marginal bone level and may increase the risk of developing peri‐implantitis. However, the role of these prosthetic features on peri‐implant health is still unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analyses was to evaluate the long‐term outcomes of implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° in comparison to those with ≤30° in terms of changes in peri‐implant marginal bone level, periodontal parameters, and prevalence rate of peri‐implantitis.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to identify observational studies that compared implant restorations with an emergence angle of >30° to those with ≤30°. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool.ResultsFour studies with 912 dental implants in 397 participants were included in the present review. Of these, 455 implants had restorations with an emergence angle of >30°, while the remaining implants had restorative emergence angle of ≤30°. The follow‐up time varied between 3.8 and 10.9 years. Implant restorations with an emergence angle of ≤30° were associated with less changes in peri‐implant marginal bone level compared to those with emergence angle of >30°. The difference, however, was not statistically significant (mean difference 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.13 to 1.72; p = 0.09). In platform‐matched implants, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant in favor of implant restorations with emergence angle of ≤30°. In terms of emergence profile, implant restorations with convex profile had significantly higher rate of peri‐implantitis (57.8%) compared to implant restorations with concave or straight profile (21.3%) (risk ratio 2.32; 95% CI 1.12–4.82; p = 0.02).ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this review, implant restorations with an emergence angles of >30° or ≤30° seem to have no significant influence on peri‐implant marginal bone level. Platform‐matched implants with an emergence angle of ≤30° may have positive effects on the peri‐implant marginal bone level changes, but the evidence support is of low to moderate certainty.

show abstract

“…Crestal bone resorption represents one of the most critical parameters for postoperative implant success [1][2]. In accordance with the established standards used to assess implant success and survival, the level of marginal bone changes during the early time mostly in the first year should be less than 1.5 mm [3][4]. Schulte with Heimke described immediate implants for the first time in 1976 [5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Crestal Bone Change Following Immediate and Delayed Placement of Dental Implant

2023

JPTCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Resorption of Crestal bone after implant placement is considered one of the most important parameters for implant success. Immediate implant placed in the extraction socket for reducing treatment time. Aim: this study was aiming to make comparison between the immediate and delayed placement of dental implant in the Crestal bone width in bucco-lingual direction clinically and radiographically by using the cone beam computed tomography. Method: A total of fifteen patients with 38 dental implants were taken in the study and they were splitted into two groups: first group of immediate implants had 18 implant cases, on the other hand second group of delayed implant placement included 20 implant cases that placed six to eight weeks after extraction. The space between the buccal and lingual bones was measured clinically and radiographically in the same time of placement of implant and repeated after 6 months, at 2nd stage surgery during abutment placement. Results: Thirty-eight implant in this study, fifteen cases were placed in mandible, and twenty-three cases in the maxilla. At the time of implant placement, the mean distance from buccal to the lingual bone for immediate implant cases was (9.27 mm ∓ SD 1.02) and (8.75 mm ∓ SD 0.77) for delayed implants. CBCT readings showed (8.98 mm ∓ SD 1.01) and (8.51 mm ∓ SD 0.74) respectively. At the second surgery, the mean distance from buccal to the lingual bone was (7.74 mm ∓ SD 0.96) for an immediate

show abstract

Bone remodeling around dental implants after 1–1.5 years of functional loading: A retrospective analysis of two‐stage implants

Cited by 9 publications

References 45 publications

Marginal Bone Level and Biomechanical Behavior of Titanium-Indexed Abutment Base of Conical Connection Used for Single Ceramic Crowns on Morse-Taper Implant: A Clinical Retrospective Study

Marginal Bone Level and Biomechanical Behavior of Titanium-Indexed Abutment Base of Conical Connection Used for Single Ceramic Crowns on Morse-Taper Implant: A Clinical Retrospective Study

Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison of Crestal Bone Change Following Immediate and Delayed Placement of Dental Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About