Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Implants Placed at Equicrestal and Subcrestal Levels Before Loading: A Prospective Clinical Study

Balaji, Nagarajan

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2015/13911.7000

Cited by 19 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, both hypotheses were accepted. These findings are in line with previous studies [22][23][24] in regard to BOP, PPD, and CBL; however, studies have yet to assess the proinflammatory cytokine profile in the PICF of dental implants placed at crestal and subcrestal levels. A variety of explanations may be posed in this regard.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, and Immunologic Inflammatory Parameters around Crestally and Subcrestally Placed Dental Implants: 5‐Year Retrospective Results

Amri

Alfadda

Labban

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article is associated with the American College of Prosthodontists' journal-based continuing education program. It is accompanied by an online continuing education activity worth 1 credit. Please visit www.wileyhealthlearning.com/jopr to complete the activity and earn credit. KeywordsCrestal bone loss; crestal placement; dental implants; peri-implant inflammation; proinflammatory cytokines; subcrestal. parameters around crestally and subcrestally placed dental implants 5 years after implant placement. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 27): patients with single implants placed approximately 2 mm below the alveolar crest; group 2 (n = 25): patients with single implants placed at bone level. In both groups, peri-implant BOP, PPD, and CBL were measured, and levels of IL-1β and MMP-9 were determined in duplicates using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Full-mouth debridement was performed biannually in both groups. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test (significance set at p < 0.05). Results: All measurements in groups 1 and 2 were performed 5.3 ± 0.2 and 5.2 ± 0.1 years after implant placement, respectively. The mean CBL was 1.2 ± 0.2 mm and 1.4 ± 0.2 mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean BOP, PPD, CBL and in levels of IL-1β, and MMP-9 among implants in both groups. Conclusion: Clinical, radiographic, and immunologic inflammatory parameters are comparable around crestally and subcrestally placed single dental implants up to 5 years after placement. The depth of implant placement appears to have no effect on clinical status and performance of single dental implants. Correspondence

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, and Immunologic Inflammatory Parameters around Crestally and Subcrestally Placed Dental Implants: 5‐Year Retrospective Results

Amri

Alfadda

Labban

et al. 2017

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eight articles were RCTs, 4 were comparative controlled trials, and 2 were prospective cohorts . Of the 12 articles included in the meta‐analysis, 3 measured early CBL in bone level implants, 7 recorded late remodeling bone level implants, and 2 in tissue level implants . Details of all included studies are summarized in Tables and .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies reported data on CBL of implants placed equi‐crestally and sub‐crestally before abutment connection. One study used Morse taper cone connection abutment whereas another one used internal hex abutment. The third, used both configurations of implant‐abutment connection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of implant‐abutment junction position on crestal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Saleh

Ravidà

Amo

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fixed implant-supported restorations have shown predictable success as a modality of treatment for missing teeth ( 1 ). These are now considered as the standard of care in preventing the adverse physical and cosmetic outcomes associated with missing teeth ( 2 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal bone loss around cement and screw-retained fixed implant prosthesis

Hameed¹,

Khan²,

Ghafoor³

et al. 2018

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplant-supported fixed restorations are considered as the standard treatment for replacement of missing teeth. These can be either screw or cement retained. The success or failure of implant restorations depend upon amount of marginal bone loss (MBL). The present study is to determine the MBL around cement and screw-retained implant prosthesis and to determine various predictors of the MBL.Material and MethodsA retrospective charts review was conducted at the dental clinics, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi from February 2017 to June 2017 in which 104 implants restorations were assessed using periapical radiographs. MBL was calculated at baseline and at 12 months and the difference was recorded on a proforma. SPSS version 21.0 was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics was computed. Generalized estimation equation analysis (GEE) was applied to determine the predictors of MBL. Level of significance was kept at ≤ 0.05.ResultsThere were 104 implant restorations belonging to 41 patients. Screw retained prosthesis showed significantly greater MBL than cement retained prosthesis (p-value =0 .018) (irrespective of crowns or fixed partial dentures). Other factors that turned out to be significant predictors of MBL were male gender (p-value= <0.01), age >65 yrs. (p-value=0.028) and sites where bone grafting was performed (p-value=0.003).ConclusionsMale patients of age >65 yrs. with sites needing bone grafts who were provided with screw retained prosthesis (irrespective of crown or fixed partial dentures) had significantly greater marginal bone loss around implants. Key words:Dental implants, dental prosthesis, implant supported dental prosthesis, alveolar bone loss.

show abstract

Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Implants Placed at Equicrestal and Subcrestal Levels Before Loading: A Prospective Clinical Study

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, and Immunologic Inflammatory Parameters around Crestally and Subcrestally Placed Dental Implants: 5‐Year Retrospective Results

Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, and Immunologic Inflammatory Parameters around Crestally and Subcrestally Placed Dental Implants: 5‐Year Retrospective Results

The effect of implant‐abutment junction position on crestal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Marginal bone loss around cement and screw-retained fixed implant prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About