Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: A 5‐year retrospective study

Abstract

Background Ongoing marginal bone loss is a threat to the longevity of implant‐supported prostheses. Aim The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and factors affecting marginal bone levels at a hydrophilic implant design after 5 years in function. Materials and Methods The study group consisted of 51 consecutive patients previously treated with 159 hydrophilic implants (Neoss Straight Proactive implants) and scheduled for annual check‐ups with clinical and radiographic examinations during 5 years. Data were compiled for the entire study population as well as for two subgroups: one where guided bone regeneration (GBR) was performed (91 implants) and the other where no GBR procedures (68 implants) were performed. Marginal bone levels were measured from peri‐apical radiographs taken at placement and annual follow‐ups. Statistical analyses were applied to evaluate the effect of different factors on marginal bone remodeling. Results Two implant failures, one from each subgroup, occurred during the first year of function resulting in an overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 98.7% after 5 years of loading. The mean marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm after 5 years. No implants showed more than 3 mm bone loss after 5 years. Age, gender, implant position, biotype, implant diameter, implant length, indication, surgical/loading protocol, and ISQ at prosthesis delivery were found to affect bone remodeling. No significant differences or correlations were seen for smoking, jaw, bone quantity, bone quality, GBR, sinus lift, and ISQ at implant placement. Conclusions The present implant design performed well with few failures and minimal marginal bone loss after 5 years of loading. Marginal bone remodeling at implants is a complex phenomenon, which is affected by many patient‐, procedure‐, and implant‐related factors that need to be further investigated.

Clinical performance of narrow‐diameter implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces with mandibular implant overdentures: 1‐year results of a randomized clinical trial

“…After one year of follow-up, AS implants had less bone loss and remodeling (BLC = −0.27 ± 0.40 mm). This result is similar to The highest remodeling rate occurred in the first 3 months, before occlusal loading, as already evidenced in previous studies (Donos et al, 2018;Zumstein et al, 2019). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, the hydrophilic surface showed better CBL and BLC values, consistent with those in the literature (Lang et al, 2011).…”

“…Implants with surface treatments capable of improving bone-implant interactions, protein adsorption, adhesion, differentiation, and cell proliferation have been used in cases with impaired bone beds (Boyan et al, 2017;Khandelwal et al, 2013;Nack et al, 2015). Implants with hydrophilic surfaces have shown promising results in clinical studies with patients using anticoagulants (Marković et al, 2017), diabetic patients (Khandelwal et al, 2013), patients with a history of radiotherapy in the head and neck region (Nack et al, 2015), patients requiring bone grafting (Donos et al, 2018(Donos et al, , 2019Marković et al, 2016;Nedir et al, 2013;Yu et al, 2017;Zumstein et al, 2019), and patients undergoing rehabilitation of the posterior maxillary (Novellino et al, 2017) and mandibular regions (Velloso et al, 2019). To date, clinical studies involving SLActive hydrophilic surfaces in mandibular implant overdenture treatment (Al-Nawas et al, 2012;Müller et al, 2015;Quirynen et al, 2015;Reis et al, 2019;Stoker & Wismeijer, 2011) have observed 1-year survival rates of 97.8% (Al-Nawas et al, 2012) to 100% (Reis et al, 2019), 98% (Stoker & Wismeijer, 2011) after 40 months, and 97.8% to 98.9% after 5 years (Müller et al, 2015).…”

Osteotome-Induced Blood Clot and Subsequent Bone Formation with the Use of Collagen Sponge for Integration of Single Dental Implants into the Atrophied Posterior Maxilla: A Retrospective Follow-Up of 36 Implants after 5 to 13 years

“…Only one implant was lost after 4 years of prosthetic loading, while the remaining 35 implants showed no problems, giving a survival rate of 97.2% after 5 to 13 years. The mean bone loss was 1.0 ± 0.4 mm at follow-up, which is similar to those found in previous studies on the same implant design and followed for at least 5 years [ 15 , 16 ].…”

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

“…2,3 There is already considerable evidence that the survival and success rates of implants placed in GBR sites are comparable to those of implants placed in the pristine bone, [4][5][6] and the implant survival rates range from 95% to 100% within 5 years at both GBR and pristine sites. [5][6][7][8] Systematic reviews of the literature have also shown that implants placed with staged or simultaneous GBR procedure can achieve high survival and success rates. [9][10][11] Simultaneous GBR Implants placed in a bone augmentation area have been reported…”

“…The survival rate of implants placed with simultaneous GBR procedures has rarely been reported, 1,14,15 and even fewer studies have analyzed the risk factors for implant loss. 8,16 Drawing reliable conclusions is challenging because of the limited number of patients and the wide variety of grafting materials and barrier membranes used alone or in combination. 17 The objective of this study was to assess the survival rate of implants placed simultaneously with GBR and to analyze the risk factors for implant loss.…”