Influence of restorative design on the progression of peri‐implant bone loss: A retrospective study

Abstract

Background Clinical data on the restorative designs affecting the early progression of peri‐implantitis are scarce. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the influence of several restorative factors (e.g., restoration emergence angle, and internal screw length/diameter) on the marginal bone loss around implants with peri‐implantitis. Methods Implants diagnosed with peri‐implantitis having 1‐ (T1) and 2‐year (T2) follow‐ups were included. In addition, within 6 months pre‐diagnosis (Tb), all cases required to have full documentation in which no evidence of peri‐implantitis was not indicated. Changes in marginal bone levels (MBLs) from Tb to T1 and from T1 to T2 were evaluated. The effect of several variables on MBLs changes was assessed via univariate and multivariate generalized estimating equations. Results Eighty‐three bone‐level implants from 65 patients were selected. The mean follow‐up before peri‐implantitis diagnosis was 99.47 ± 47.93 months. The radiographic mean marginal bone loss was 1.52 ± 1.33 mm (Tb to T1) and 0.58 ± 0.52 mm (T1 to T2). Restoration emergence angle and frequency of maintenance visits significantly affected MBLs from Tb to T1. Besides, 66.3% of the included implants’ bone levels were in a zone within 1 mm of the apical end of the internal screw at T1 and remained in this zone during the second follow‐up year. Conclusions Significant marginal bone loss occurred in the early post‐diagnosis period of peri‐implantitis, which could be affected by the restoration emergence angle. Peri‐implant MBLs were frequently located in a zone within 1 mm of the apical end of the internal screw.

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

“…As the emergence angle increased, marginal bone level changes in this period tended to increase correspondingly. Various other studies showed that prosthetic design plays a role in peri‐implant bone level alterations (Katafuchi et al, 2018 ; Majzoub et al, 2021 ; Yi et al, 2020 ). Their data indicated that an emergence angle of ≥30° and a convex profile on bone‐level implants led to an increased chance of developing peri‐implantitis.…”

Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non‐original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort study

“…Recent clinical studies have suggested that restoration angles >30° are significantly associated with increased marginal bone loss (Katafuchi et al, 2018; Majzoub et al, 2021; Yi et al, 2020). In a cross‐sectional study, in which 169 patients with 349 implants were analysed, bone level implants with a restorative angle >30° showed an approximate twofold increase in bone loss compared with those with a restorative angle <30° (Yi et al, 2020).…”

“…The same study also showed a higher prevalence of peri‐implantitis when the restorative angle was >30°. Similarly, another recent retrospective study investigated the influence of restorative design on the progression of peri‐implant bone loss (Majzoub et al, 2021). The study, which included 65 patients and 83 bone level implants, revealed that implants with a restoration angle >30° exhibited more marginal bone loss than those with an angle ≤30° (Majzoub et al, 2021).…”

“…Similarly, another recent retrospective study investigated the influence of restorative design on the progression of peri‐implant bone loss (Majzoub et al, 2021). The study, which included 65 patients and 83 bone level implants, revealed that implants with a restoration angle >30° exhibited more marginal bone loss than those with an angle ≤30° (Majzoub et al, 2021). The present findings appear to be consistent with the studies mentioned above, despite the fact that in the present study a different cut‐off was used (40° rather than 30°).…”

“…It has to be noted that the 30° cut-off applied in previous clinical studies (Katafuchi et al, 2018;Majzoub et al, 2021;Yi et al, 2020) derives from a dog study on conventional crowns and not implants (Kohal, Gerds, & Strub, 2003). Peri-implant mucositis case definition (Berglundh et al, 2018):…”