Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses

Effect of Different Abutments and Connections in Deformation Crestal Bone

“…12 Therefore, load transfer at the bone-implant interface depends, among other factors, on the load type, the quantity and quality of supporting bone tissue, implant geometry, position, number and linear arrangement of the implants, size of the occlusal surface, excessive height of the abutment/crown, prosthesis interfaces, cantilever length, parafunctional occlusal habits, bite force, primary mechanical stability, and type of prosthetic retention. When the occlusal force exceeds the capacity of the osseointegrated interface to absorb stress, the implant is expected to fail.…”

Factors Influencing Immediate Maxillary Dental Implant Placement and Bone Resorption: A Review of the Literature and an Outlook on the Clinical Possibilities

“…Although many authors have suggested that immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets can prevent physiological bone resorption following the extraction of a dental element, more recent studies have questioned this possibility [13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

Crestal Bone Level Alterations in Implant Therapy

“…However, the retrospective nature of the study with a very heterogeneous material and a large range in follow-up time may limit the validity of the findings. Parafunctional activity and bite force in relation to marginal bone loss was evaluated in a series of studies (Lindquist et al 1988(Lindquist et al , 1996 involving patients with mandibular fixed total dentures. Using data from 3-6 years of follow-up Lindquist et al 1988 reported that both poor oral hygiene and tooth clenching were associated with marginal bone loss.…”

“…Limited data have been reported regarding the possible influence of prosthesis related factors such as cantilever extension on marginal bone stability around implants. Lindquist et al 1988 reported that seven patients with long cantilevers (15 mm) showed more bone loss than 6 patients with short cantilevers (15 mm). However the difference was small (0.95 mm vs 0.61 mm) and only observed in the medial fixture sites.…”