Retrospective Long-term Evaluation of Dental Implants in Totally and Partially Edentulous Patients. Part I

Trullenque‐Eriksson, Anna; Guisado-Moya, Blanca

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000171

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean mesial MBL—statistically corrected to report the first year—was 0.6 ± 1.2 mm in the healthy control group and −1.1 ± 1.3 mm in the osteoporotic group, respectively. Similarly, the mean distal MBL was −0.5 ± 1.3 mm in the healthy control group and 1.2 ± 1.3 mm in the osteoporotic group, respectively, and 0.2 mm for the second year, which is comparable to recent studies . However, these findings have to be evaluated critically as most studies on MBL describe a mean annual resorption rate calculated after a certain recall period divided by the loading years without separating the first from the following years .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…In 55.6% (n 5 69) of the healthy group and 60% (n 5 48) of the osteoporotic group, implants The correlation coefficients for the extended models can be found in Tables 1 and 2 20.5 6 1.3 mm in the healthy control group and 1.2 6 1.3 mm in the osteoporotic group, respectively, and 0.2 mm for the second year, which is comparable to recent studies. 1,3,[27][28][29][30][31] However, these findings have to be evaluated critically as most studies on MBL describe a mean annual resorption rate calculated after a certain recall period divided by the loading years without separating the first from the following years. 29,32 Hence, the comparison in between studies is difficult.…”

Section: Patient Demographics Of the Matched Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

Wagner

Schuder

Hof

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Patient Demographics Of the Matched Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

Wagner

Schuder

Hof

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was recognized by previous authors (Frisch, Ziebolz & Rinke, 2013; Trullenque‐Eriksson & Guisado‐Moya, 2014) and obvious from the study of Jensen, Meijer, Raghoebar, Kerdijk and Cune (2017). The latter had a mean follow‐up time of 8 years based on implants in function from 3 years up to 16 years of follow‐up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Despite this low mean bone loss, high bleedings scores around the implants of 82% and 90% were reported.A serious problem in this review is the heterogeneity of the data and the variation of the follow-up time within each study. This was recognized by previous authors(Frisch, Ziebolz & Rinke, 2013;Trullenque-Eriksson & Guisado-Moya, 2014) and obvious from the study ofJensen, Meijer, Raghoebar, Kerdijk and Cune (2017). The latter had a mean follow-up time of 8 years based on implants in function from 3 years up to 16 years of follow-up.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Doornewaard

Jacquet

Cosyn

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.Materials and methodsPublications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.ResultsFull‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.ConclusionBiologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

show abstract

“…Implant roughness and/or implant system were not reported or unknown and hence all these studies/treatment groups were considered as a separate group . Some papers presented in their results a mixture of implants with various surface roughnesses and did not make specific distinction between them and therefore were also excluded for the detailed roughness versus bone loss evaluation . Additionally, studies which did not mention the standard deviation of bone loss were excluded because calculation of proportions of bone loss was impossible …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Doornewaard

Christiaens

Bruyn

et al. 2016

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

103

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

show abstract

Retrospective Long-term Evaluation of Dental Implants in Totally and Partially Edentulous Patients. Part I

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Long‐Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About