Crestal bone loss associated with different implant surfaces in the posterior mandible in patients with a history of periodontitis. A retrospective study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo retrospectively assess the interproximal bone loss (CBL) in external hexagon implants (EHI), with different surface micro‐topography, placed in the posterior mandible in patients with a history of periodontitis undergoing supportive periodontal care.Material and methods268 consecutive patients received 755 EHI implants in the mandibular molar region between 2007 and 2015 with the following surface characteristics: 72 turned, 145 hybrids (double acid‐etched/turned), and 538 anodized. CBL was yearly evaluated by analysing calibrated digital periapical radiographs, with a follow‐up of 1–6 years. Data on implant survival were also calculated.ResultsAt 6 years (53 patients), the mean CBL was 1.34/1.42 mm at patient/implant level, respectively (range: 0–5.2 mm). Significantly higher CBL was detected in anodized implants than in turned and hybrid implants (1.92/1.46/1.02 mm) (p < .01). The maximum CBL values were found in 2 anodized implants at 4 years (6.3 and 8.1 mm). CBL ≥2 mm was detected in 18% of implants at 3 years and 35% at 6 (p < 2.2 × 10−16), this prevalence being 2.6 times higher in the anodized than in the hybrid and turned group (40%/15.6%, p < .0094). At 6 years, 25 anodized implants presented CBL ≥3 mm (18%). 6 anodized implants (5 patients) were removed between 4 and 5 years.ConclusionA significant higher CBL was observed in anodized, compared to hybrid and turned implants, when placed in the mandibular molar region of periodontal patients, with a follow‐up of 1 to 6 years.

One‐year outcomes of dental implants with a hybrid surface macro‐design placed in patients with history of periodontitis: A randomized clinical trial

“…Another important factor that may explain the heterogeneous results reported in the literature comparing marginal bone level changes between implants with different surface microtopographies may be related to the different sample populations used in the different studies. In this study, we purposely selected patients with history of periodontitis, since these patients have shown significant higher bone loss when comparing anodized surface implants to hybrid and turned implants (Sicilia et al, 2021). Similarly, these patients have shown a higher incidence and progression of peri-implantitis, when comparing rough surface with machined surface implants (Hanisch et al, 1997;Esposito et al, 2014).…”

Minimal invasiveness in vertical ridge augmentation

“…To prevent biologic complications because of the exposure of the rough surface secondary to bone loss, the use of one-piece implant designs (such as tissue level implants), hybrid implant surfaces, and the subcrestal placement of implants have been proposed. [150][151][152][153][154][155] To minimize the initial bone remodeling associated with vertical ridge augmentation procedures, a second protecting layer of bone grafting at the time of implant placement has also been advocated. 146 Results using a mixture of a slowly resorbable xenogenic bone graft and autogenous bone chips covered with a resorbable membrane demonstrated that epi-crestally placed implants into vertically augmented bone exhibited excellent marginal bone stability.…”

“…In this context, implant design and surface characteristics may play a role. To prevent biologic complications because of the exposure of the rough surface secondary to bone loss, the use of one‐piece implant designs (such as tissue level implants), hybrid implant surfaces, and the subcrestal placement of implants have been proposed 150–155 …”