Risk indicators for marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years: A retrospective longitudinal study

Abstract

Background Marginal bone stability is considered one of the most important issues in implant dentistry. It is essential to understand how various factors influence bone resorption around implants. The purpose of this retrospective longitudinal study was to identify potential risk indicators associated with marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years. Methods Several systemic‐related, intraoral‐related, implant‐related factors were collected. Marginal bone level change (MBLC) was determined by comparing intraoral radiographs taken at baseline (1 year after prosthesis delivery), and at follow‐up (over 3 years from baseline). A hierarchical regression analysis using liner mixed‐effects models was performed to examine correlations between MBLC and various factors. Results Overall, 514 patients with 1535 implants were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 62.9 years. Mean annual MBLC was 0.048 mm, and mean functional time was 5.96 years. The result showed that the following explanatory variables had significant effects on MBLC: functional time, plaque control record > 20%, Eichner index C1‐3, maxilla, cement‐retained superstructure, and keratinized mucosa width < 2 mm. We did not find statistically significant associations between bone resorption and some variables known as risk factors, such as diabetes, smoking, and history of periodontitis. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, longer functional time, poor oral hygiene, loss of occlusal support, location in the maxilla, cement‐retained superstructure, and less keratinized mucosa should be considered as risk indicators for bone resorption around implants.

Influence of width of keratinized tissue on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Upon further analysis of the present data synthesis, MBL differed significantly between the two groups, favoring implants with wider KT. This finding corroborates the results of former observation, which over a 4‐year period detected significantly more MBL at implants with KT < 2 mm compared to the control sites (Mameno et al 2020). Consequently, as the previous meta‐analysis based on four prospective clinical studies indicates, soft‐tissue augmentation for KT gain significantly improved gingival and plaque indices and yielded more stable MBLs, relative to non‐augmented sites, thereby confirming that adequate KT at an implant site is associated with superior peri‐implant soft‐ and hard‐tissue health and stability (Thoma et al.…”

“…This finding corroborates the results of former observation, which over a 4-year period detected significantly more MBL at implants with KT < 2 mm compared to the control sites (Mameno et al 2020).…”

Risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of peri‐implantitis: A cross‐cultural comparison of U.S. and European periodontists’ considerations

“…Recent research also identified these factors as important. 9,44,45 The most frequently used diagnostic criteria by both groups included radiographic bone loss, clinical probing and presence of bleeding and suppuration. Both groups evaluated implant exposure and mucosal recession as a Answers ranged from "1" = "disagree strongly" to "5" = "agree strongly".…”

Occlusal Overload May Affect the Recovery of Peri-implant Bone: A Report of Two Cases

“…3 In a recent retrospective longitudinal study, poor plaque control was reported to be the main risk factor for peri-implant bone loss. 10 Given the infectious etiology of peri-implantitis, the majority of efforts aimed…”