Reasons for Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants

Qian, Jie; Wennerberg, Ann; Albrektsson, Tomas

doi:10.1111/cid.12014

Cited by 217 publications

(220 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, our findings point out that standard implants placed in regenerated bone have a higher bone loss over time when compared with short implants; however, this evidence is only corroborated by two available RCT. Several variables such as surgical technique [41,42], implant design and connection [43], prosthetic considerations [28] or patient-centred variables [44] have to be considered aswell.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. Materials and methods Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. Results Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD − 0.04 mm [− 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD − 0.10 mm [− 0.16; − 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. Clinical relevance The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As observed in a recent review, there are many original reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants, reasons not associated with any primary infection or overloading alone, but instead coupled with the hardware used, clinical handling, and different patient factors or foreign body reactions. 49 Furthermore, the peri-implant bone reactions around delayed and immediately loaded implants have been evaluated in an animal study. Histological and histomorphometric observations and data have already been published 50 and have shown no histological differences in the two loading groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediately loaded non-submerged versus delayed loaded submerged dental implants: A meta-analysis

Chrcanovic

Albrektsson

Wennerberg

2015

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The density variation was computed through the formulation described in Eq. (8 ), inspired by Li et al [ 16 ]: (8) where ψ is the chosen mechanical stimulus, K a is the adaptation rate, and ψ d and ψ a are the damage and apposition LZ limits, respectively ( Fig. 4 a).…”

Section: Bone Adaptation Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several adaptation models have been implemented in order to evaluate the integration of implants, for example in dentistry [4][5][6] by considering both bone apposition and resorption due to overloading. The interplay between these phenomena has been seen to regulate the peri-implant marginal loss and determine the long term stability of dental implants [7,8] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical prediction of peri-implant bone adaptation: Comparison of mechanical stimuli and sensitivity to modeling parameters

Piccinini

Botsis

Ammann

et al. 2016

Medical Engineering & Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tLong term durability of osseointegrated implants depends on bone adaptation to stress and strain occurring in proximity of the prosthesis. Mechanical overloading, as well as disuse, may reduce the stability of implants by provoking bone resorption. However, an appropriate mechanical environment can improve integration. Several studies have focused on the definition of numerical methods to predict bone periimplant adaptation to the mechanical environment. Existing adaptation models differ notably in the type of mechanical variable adopted as stimulus but also in the bounds and shape of the adaptation rate equation. However, a general comparison of the different approaches on a common benchmark case is still missing and general guidelines to determine physically sound parameters still need to be developed. This current work addresses these themes in two steps. Firstly, the histograms of effective stress, strain and strain energy density are compared for rat tibiae in physiological (homeostatic) conditions. According to the Mechanostat, the ideal stimulus should present a clearly defined, position and tissue invariant lazy zone in homeostatic conditions. Our results highlight that only the octahedral shear strain presents this characteristic and can thus be considered the optimal choice for implementation of a continuum level bone adaptation model. Secondly, critical modeling parameters such as lazy zone bounds, type of rate equation and bone overloading response are classified depending on their influence on the numerical predictions of bone adaptation. Guidelines are proposed to establish the dominant model parameters based on experimental and simulated data.

show abstract

Reasons for Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants

Cited by 217 publications

References 82 publications

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Immediately loaded non-submerged versus delayed loaded submerged dental implants: A meta-analysis

Numerical prediction of peri-implant bone adaptation: Comparison of mechanical stimuli and sensitivity to modeling parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About