No abstract

The marginal bone loss around dental implants is an important indicator that helps to evaluate the course and the final outcome of implant-prosthetic treatment. It is, therefore, important to understand the factors that may affect this. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of the specific characteristics of implant-prosthetic treatment on the marginal bone loss around implants. The study included 28 patients, aged 37-66 years, treated with dental implants. Every patient received at least one of the two types of implants: with Morse taper connection and with internal hexagonal connection. The average marginal bone loss around the implants was evaluated on the basis of the panoramic radiographs. The maximum follow-up period after implantation was 46 months. The peri-implant marginal bone loss was evaluated taking into consideration the implant localisation, the procedure of sinus lift with bone augmentation, implant type, implant diameter, vertical implant position relative to the compact bone level and the type of prosthetic restoration, the time between implantation and loading with prosthetic restoration, as well as the time between loading and the measurement of marginal bone loss. The correlation between bone loss and the selected characteristics of the treatment was assessed using generalised estimating equations (GEE). An objective analysis was enabled via the applied research model: evaluation of an impact of the specific implant-prosthetic treatment characteristics on peri-implant marginal bone loss in patients treated with implants with different implant-abutment interface systems. The results of the study showed that peri-implant marginal bone loss increased significantly with implant localisation in canine sites (compared to the localization in premolar sites), as well as with prosthetic restorations in the form of dentures (compared to bridges), and decreased when implants were placed below the compact bone level (compared to those placed at the bone level). At the same time, marginal bone loss was not significantly related to implant diameter or to the sinus lift procedure. The results obtained seem extremely useful in everyday clinical practice

Szymańska J, Szpak P. Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient. J Pre-Clin Clin Res. 2017; 11(1): 30-34. doi: 10.26444/jpccr/74465 Abstract Introduction. One of the criteria of implant therapy success is marginal bone loss. The objective of the study was to assess the correlation between peri-implant marginal bone loss and implant-abutment connection systems used in the same patient, as well as other specific characteristics of implant treatment. The initial research hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants with different implant-abutment connection systems placed in the same patient. Materials and method. Marginal bone loss was assessed around implants with two different types of implant-abutment connection: with conical (Type I) and with internal hexagonal (Type II) in the same patient. The study included 28 patients aged 37-66 years. Results. Marginal bone loss around Type I implants was 0.112 mm/month before loading with prosthetic restorations, and 0.010 mm/month after loading, while for Type II implants it reached, respectively, 0.123 mm/month and 0.030 mm/month. Marginal bone loss after loading with prosthetic restorations was 11 times lower for Type I implants and 4 times lower for Type II implants. Evaluation of marginal bone loss in the studied patient groups was made on the basis of orthopantomographic radiographs. Conclusions. Implants with conical implant-abutment connection are significantly more favourable to osseointegration than those with internal hexagonal connection. As marginal bone loss is faster before loading implants with prosthetic restorations than after loading, it is advisable to consider early loading if the necessary clinical conditions are met.

Based on a review of topical literature, the paper presents the results of studies concerning marginal bone loss around dental implants. The paper provides a detailed description of the process of bone loss around dental implants with conical implant-abutment connection generally used in implant prosthetic treatment. The reviewed articles reported experimental studies involving animals, as well as clinical research in humans. The results concerning bone loss around the hexagonal implant-abutment interface are cited only to provide the historical background, as implants with internal connections are generally available and currently used in oral implantology. The research on bone loss around implants conducted over the years has allowed for the assessment of the relationships between various factors that may affect the process of bone loss around implants and, consequently, influence the final result of the treatment and therapeutic success. The researchers focused on the effect of such factors as: differences in implant structure, types of surfaces, shapes and materials. In addition, bone loss is dependent on prosthetic treatment: implants may be placed at different locations in the alveolar process bone and at different levels in the hard bone; open or closed methods of healing are used; types of prosthetic restorations loaded after implantation vary, as also varies the time from implantation to loading (early or late loading), types of cementing material and cementing techniques. The paper discusses also the presence of a microgap and its colonization by microorganisms as factors that negatively affect the process of osseointegration.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the survival of implants with different implantabutment connection systems, in patients who had two kinds of implants implanted. In total, 240 implants were implanted -91 implants with conical abutment Morse connection, and 149 with an internal hexagonal connection. During the follow-up period of 3 years and 10 months, the percentage of lost implants with a conical implant-abutment connection was 1.1%. Regarding the implants with hexagonal implant-abutment connection, this figure was 0.7%. Our work shows that there is a need for further research on the survival of dental implants. In this, the influence of other factors should be explored that are related both to the specific implant treatment, as well as to socio-demographic factors.

We analyzed the relationship between marginal bone loss around dental implants and selected personal characteristics of patients (gender, age and cigarette smoking) undergoing dental rehabilitation because of missing teeth. The study comprised 28 patients aged 37-66 years (11 men and 17 women) who had 240 implants inserted. The assessment of marginal bone loss in the examined patient cohort was made based on ortho-pantomographic X-ray images. For evaluation of the condition of the marginal bone around the implants during 46-month follow-up, with relation to the sociodemographic features of the patient, multi-generational linear models were used. Studies show that the loss of marginal bone around the implant increased with the age of the patient, but did not correlate significantly with the patient’s gender or smoking habit.

Tobacco smoking is one of the essential factors that may affect dental implant treatment. A great majority of studies on the relationship between smoking and dental implant failures indicate a clearly negative influence of the addiction, while only few papers do not report such a connection. Basing on the implantology literature data, the paper presents the criteria of success and failure in dental implant treatment. The influence of tobacco smoking on implant treatment failure, and especially on implant survival as the main criterion of therapeutic success, was described. The current status of knowledge on the effect of tobacco smoking on the crestal bone loss around implants was also presented. In addition, the paper describes in detail a possible pathomechanism of the influence of nicotinism on the crestal bone loss around implants as one of the factors leading to treatment failure. The necessity of a rational consensus, involving also the legal aspect of the problem, between a tobacco-smoking patient and a doctor providing implant treatment was emphasized.

No abstract