Factors Associated With Crestal Bone Loss Following Dental Implant Placement in a Longitudinal Follow-up Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to estimate the magnitude of crestal bone loss and to identify factors associated with changes in crestal bone height following placement of dental implants. This was a retrospective cohort study, consisting of a sample derived from the population of patients who had at least 1 dental implant placed in a community practice over a 10-year period. A total of 11 predictor variables were grouped into demographic, related health status, anatomic, implant-specific, and operative categories. The primary outcome variable was a change in crestal bone height (mm) over the course of follow-up. The secondary outcome variable was crestal bone loss at 1 year grouped into 2 categories (bone loss >1.5 mm and ≤1.5 mm). Univariate and multivariate regression mixed-effects models were developed to identify variables associated with crestal bone level changes over time. P values ≤.05 were considered statistically significant. The study sample was composed of 85 subjects who received 148 implants. The mean change of the crestal bone was -2.1 ± 1.5 mm (range = -12.5 to 0.5 mm; median = -1.77 mm). In the multivariate model, none of the variables studied were statistically associated with mean crestal bone loss. Among 84 (66.1%) implants with bone loss >1.5 mm within 1 year, no variables were associated with bone loss in the multivariate model. Of the 11 predictor variables evaluated in this study, none were statistically significant with regard to an increased risk for crestal bone loss or for excessive bone loss within the first year after implant placement.

Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study

“…Diz and colleagues reviewed a range of medical problems and concluded that the degree of disease control may be far more important than the nature of the systemic disorder itself [30]. This confirms the previous finding that age, sex, ASA classification and immediate implants were not predictive for bone loss within the first year after implant placement [31]. The medication profile of this group of patients was not investigated but future research should study the association between medicines and implant outcome as medication such as glucocorticoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories and chemotherapy can adversely affect wound healing [32].…”

A clinico-radiographic and histomorphometric analysis of alveolar ridge preservation using calcium phosphosilicate, PRF, and collagen plug

“…Around 87% of implants exhibited an ISQ value above 65 which states that the quality of the augment bone is of type 1 [31]. The level of crestal bone around implants was minimal and said to be consistent with that of Kim et al 2015 [32].…”

Differences in Dental Implant Survival between Immediate vs. Delayed Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The impact of immediate and delayed implant placement upon crestal bone loss was also measured in this review among three studies [25,29,31], with losses of 1.5 mm in the first year following implant placement being considered within normal limits [37] (Kim et al, 2015). The studies included in this review found that crestal bone losses were unfavourable for the immediate implant placement group as compared to the delayed placement groups; given that the losses were significantly different but the extent of loss at 12 months tended not to exceed the accepted 1.5 mm threshold, the findings were not considered clinically meaningful.…”