Crestal Bone Loss and Oral Implants

Albrektsson, Tomas; Buser, D; Sennerby, Lars

doi:10.1111/cid.12013

Cited by 171 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be attributable to a theoretical response to device installation (Albrektsson et al. 2012) with re‐establishment of the biological width and maturation of the barrier function that takes place following bacterial invasion of the implant/abutment interface and requires 6–8 weeks of healing (Canullo et al. 2012, Hermann et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Rocha

Wagner

Wiltfang

et al. 2016

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveEvaluation of differences in the clinical performance and crestal bone levels between implants restored with single crowns with platform‐matched or platform‐switched abutments after 3 years.Material and MethodsThe study enrolled adult patients missing two or more adjacent teeth in the posterior mandible with natural teeth mesial to the implant site. Randomization followed open‐flap implant insertion and the corresponding matching or switching healing abutments placed at surgery. Conventional loading was made with cemented crowns. Clinical follow‐up took place annually after loading up to 3 years. Bone level changes were measured in standardized radiographs as the variation in crestal bone from one evaluation to the next.ResultsSixty‐three patients with a total of 135 implants (66 platform matching, 69 platform switching) were analysed. From surgery to 36 months, mean bone loss was 0.28 ± 0.56 mm for the platform‐switching group and 0.68 ± 0.64 mm for the platform‐matching group. A statistically significant difference was found between groups (p = 0.002) with an estimate of 0.39 mm (0.15–0.64, 95% CI) in favour of platform switching.ConclusionsAfter 3 years, platform‐switching restorations showed a significant effect in the preservation of marginal bone levels compared to platform‐matching restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Rocha

Wagner

Wiltfang

et al. 2016

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mombelli, Muller and Cionca (2012) calculated the prevalence of peri‐implantitis, based on 29 papers, in the order of 10% of the affected implants and 20% patients during 5–10 years after implant placement. Another review summarizing 10 papers reporting on the 10‐year clinical outcome with implants treated by sandblasting, grit blasting, acid‐etching, or combined treatments revealed that the survival was above 95% and <5% were diagnosed with purulent infection or peri‐implantitis (Albrektsson, Buser & Sennerby, 2012). A 10‐year follow‐up study including nearly 300 implants in 100 subjects revealed similar figures (Cecchinato, Parpaiola & Lindhe, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Doornewaard

Jacquet

Cosyn

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.Materials and methodsPublications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.ResultsFull‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.ConclusionBiologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

show abstract

“…Limitations, such as the ones above described have led to significant controversies among researchers regarding the rather alarming figures currently reported in peri-implantitis prevalence. In 2012, Albrektsson et al 3 concluded that, under established protocols, periimplantitis prevalence figures were under 5% for modern implants, and suggested caution in the interpretation of data in order to avoid an undesirable over-estimation on the prevalence of peri-implant disease, as results on periimplantitis prevalence studies can be heavily influenced by substantial methodological limitations. However, Atieh et al 10 verified in a recent systematic review that the summary estimates for the frequency of peri-implantitis were 18.8% of participants and 9.6% of implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peri-implantitis was defined at the Consensus meeting on Peri-implantitis 3 as an 'infection with suppuration associated with clinically significant progressing marginal bone loss after the adaptive phase, usually restricted to the first year of function'. According to the American Academy of Periodontology, 4 peri-implantitis is 'an inflammatory process around an implant that includes both soft tissue inflammation and loss of supporting bone'.…”

Section: Definition and Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and Possible Risk Factors of Peri-implantitis: A Concept Review

Marcantonio

Nícoli

Marcantonio

et al. 2015

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of this review is to estimate the prevalence of peri-implantitis, as well as to determine possible risk factors associated with its development in patients treated with oral implants.Background: Although implant therapy has been identified as a successful and predictable treatment for partially and fully edentulous patients, complications and failures can occur. Periimplantitis is considered a biologic complication that results in bone loss around implants and may lead to implant treatment failure. Results:A great variation has been observed in the literature regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis according to the diagnostic criteria used to define peri-implantitis. The prevalence ranges from 4.7 to 43% at implant level, and from 8.9 to ≥ 56% at patient level. Many risk factors that may lead to the establishment and progression of peri-implantitis have been suggested. There is strong evidence that presence and history of periodontitis are potential risk factors for peri-implantitis. Cigarette smoking has not yet been conclusively established as a risk factor for peri-implantitis, although extra care should be taken with dental implant in smokers. Other risk factors, such as diabetes, genetic traits, implant surface roughness and presence of keratinized mucosa still require further investigation. Clinical significance: The knowledge of the real impact of peri-implantitis on the outcome of treatments with oral implants as well as the identification of risk factors associated to this inflammatory condition are essential for the development of supportive maintenance programs and the establishment of prevention protocols. Conclusion: Peri-implantitis is not an uncommon complication following implant therapy. A higher prevalence of peri-implantitis

show abstract

Crestal Bone Loss and Oral Implants

Abstract: The summed frequency of peri-implantitis and implant failure is commonly less than 5% over 10 years of follow-up for modern implants when using established protocols.

Cited by 171 publications

References 28 publications

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3 years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Prevalence and Possible Risk Factors of Peri-implantitis: A Concept Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About