Multivariate analysis of the influence of prosthodontic factors on peri‐implant bleeding index and marginal bone level in a molar site: A cross‐sectional study

Inoue, Masakí; Nakano, Tamaki; Shimomoto, Takuya; Kabata, Daijiro; Shintani, Ayumi; Yatani, Hirofumi

doi:10.1111/cid.12953

Cited by 11 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aim was to identify if a >30° EA might influence interproximal bone loss. The present findings partially agree with other recently published papers; a multivariate analysis to investigate the influence of prosthetic factors on the marginal bone level was conducted by Inoue et al [ 15 ]. It was stated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the emergence angle and marginal bone level.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Marginal Bone Maintenance and Different Prosthetic Emergence Angles: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

Lops

Romeo

Stocchero

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess marginal bone changes around implants restored with different prosthetic emergence profile angles. Patients were treated with implants supporting fixed dentures and were followed for 3 years. Marginal bone levels (MBL) measured at the prosthesis installation (t0) and at the 3-year follow-up visit (t1) were considered. The MBL change from t0 to t1 was investigated. Two groups were considered: Group 1 for restorations with an angle between implant axis and prosthetic emergence profile >30°, and Group 2 for those with an angle ≤30°, respectively. Moreover, peri-implant soft tissue parameters, such as the modified bleeding index (MBI) and plaque index (PI) were assessed. Seventy-four patients were included in the analysis and a total of 312 implants were examined. The mean EA in groups 1 and 2 was 45 ± 4 and 22 ± 7 degrees, respectively. The mean marginal bone level change (MBL change) of 0.06 ± 0.09 mm and 0.06 ± 0.10 mm were, respectively, in groups 1 and 2. The difference in the MBL change between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.969). The MBL change does not seem to be influenced by the emergence angle for implants with a stable internal conical connection and platform-switching of the abutment diameter.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Marginal Bone Maintenance and Different Prosthetic Emergence Angles: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

Lops

Romeo

Stocchero

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the mentioned 6 months follow-up study, the authors found that the modification of the restorative contour in the test group-to facilitate the oral hygiene-resulted in significant better clinical outcomes than the control group, in which the restorative contour was not modified (de Tapia et al, 2019). Consistently, outcomes from a cross-sectional study showed a tendency (p > .05) towards inferior BOP levels at implants with a restorative angle between 20° and 40° (Inoue et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Despite the wide use of these restorations in clinical practice, evidence regarding the clinical and biological outcomes is still lacking. This lack of information is of particular importance as recent studies revealed that the restorative or prosthetic design may influence biological outcomes such as marginal bone loss (Inoue et al, 2020; Katafuchi, Weinstein, Leroux, Chen, & Daubert, 2018; Majzoub, Chen, Saleh, Askar, & Wang, 2021; Yi, Koo, Schwarz, Ben Amara, & Heo, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non‐original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort study

Strauß

Siegenthaler

Hämmerle

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To assess radiographic, restorative, clinical and technical outcomes as well as patient satisfaction of directly veneered zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases over 5 years. Material and Methods:Twenty-four patients with a single missing tooth in the aesthetic zone were recruited. All patients received a two-piece implant with a screwretained veneered zirconia restoration cemented extraorally on a titanium base abutment. Marginal bone levels (MBL), marginal bone changes, technical complications, patient satisfaction and clinical parameters including probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index were assessed at crown delivery (baseline), at 1 year (FU-1) and 5 years (FU-5) of follow-up. To investigate the relationship between restorative angle and MBL as well as marginal bone changes (bone loss/bone gain), correlation tests and linear regression models were carried out.Results: Twenty-two patients were available for re-examination at 5 years. The mean MBL amounted to 0.54 ± 0.39 mm at baseline, and to 0.24 ± 0.35 at FU-5 (=bone gain) (p < .001). At FU-1, a positive correlation (r = .5) between the mesial restorative angle and mesial MBL was found (p = .012). Marginal bone changes between baseline and FU-1 at mesial sites were also positively correlated with the mesial restorative angle (r = .5; p = .037). Linear and logistic regression models confirmed that mesial marginal bone loss was significantly associated with the mesial restorative angle at FU-1 (p < .05). At 5 years, these significant associations at mesial sites disappeared (p > .05).At distal sites, no correlations or associations between the restorative angle and MBL or marginal bone changes were found regardless of the time point. During the 5-year follow-up, 5 technical complications occurred, mainly within the first year and mostly chippings. All patients were entirely satisfied with their implant-supported restoration at 5 years.

show abstract

“…The three eligible studies, Katafuchi et al (2018), Yi et al (2020), and Inoue et al (2020), had a retrospective case‐control and cross‐sectional design, respectively. The study by Katafuchi et al (2018) collected data from patients who had implants placed in a university setting (Washington) during the period of 1998 to 2003.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yi et al (2020) collected data from patients who had implant restorations placed between March 2002 and February 2012 at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. Inoue et al (2020) described patients who received implant treatment in the molar region at the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Osaka University Dental Hospital, and who visited for maintenance from May 2013 to August 2018.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant‐abutment emergence angle and profile in relation to peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Soulami

Slot

Weijden

2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement:The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile (EP) and the prevalence of peri-implantitis.Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from initiation up to April 2022. Studies describing the EA and EP in association with peri-implantitis were considered eligible for this review and selected for inclusion in this review if implant groups with wide and narrow EA and different EP types were described.Results: Searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library led to 1116 unique titles and the inclusion of three studies. These concerned 168-349 implants.Two studies presented the mean prevalence of peri-implantitis which was 16.7% and 24.8% at the implant level. Both studies showed a significant relationship between peri-implantitis in bone-level implant groups with an EA above 30°compared to implants with an EA below 30°. A third study presented marginal bone loss which tended to be smaller when the EA was around 20°-40°.In one of the three included studies, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was significantly higher if implants had a convex EP compared to a concave or straight EP. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with a convex EP compared to other EP types, if combined with an EA above 30°.Conclusions: Three eligible studies were found. Reported associations should therefore be considered with caution. Synthesis suggests an association between a larger EA (>30°) and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis or marginal bone loss compared to a smaller EA (<30°). A convex EP may also be associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. However, causality remains a question.

show abstract

Multivariate analysis of the influence of prosthodontic factors on peri‐implant bleeding index and marginal bone level in a molar site: A cross‐sectional study

Cited by 11 publications

References 45 publications

Marginal Bone Maintenance and Different Prosthetic Emergence Angles: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

Marginal Bone Maintenance and Different Prosthetic Emergence Angles: A 3-Year Retrospective Study

Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non‐original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort study

Implant‐abutment emergence angle and profile in relation to peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About