The Effect of Age, Gender, and Insertion Site on Marginal Bone Loss around Endosseous Implants: Results from a 3-Year Trial with Premium Implant System

Abstract

Objectives. The goal of this study was to evaluate bone changes around endosseous implants in partially edentulous patients. Materials and Methods. A total of 632 two-stage implants were placed in 252 patients. The implants had straight emergence profile, ZirTi surface, 3.3 to 5 mm diameter, and 8.5 to 13 mm length. Bone levels were assessed on orthopantomography immediately after surgery and after 36 months and marginal bone loss (MBL) was calculated from their difference. Results. Cumulative survival rate was 98.73%. Overall MBL was 0.8 mm ± 0.03 (mean ± SEM). Higher MBL was observed around implants in the maxilla than in the mandible (P < 0.007). A relation between implant diameter and MBL (P < 0.0001) was observed in male and, more limitedly, female patients. Older patients had higher MBL in the maxilla, but not in the mandible (P < 0.0001). MBL progressively increased with age in male patients, but reached a peak already in the 50–60 years age group in the female subset (P < 0.001). Conclusions. The overall MBL is consistent with the available literature. Site difference and patient age and gender appear to significantly affect MBL, representing important factors to be considered during implant placement.

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

“…MBL at the mesial and distal aspect was significantly higher in the maxilla than in the mandible, which conforms to recent literature; bone quality in the elderly female maxilla is reduced and primary stability may cause difficulties . Low insertion torque and consequently reduced primary stability may have an influence on early implant loss—whether this also accounts for MBL remains unknown.…”

“…30,37 MBL at the mesial and distal aspect was significantly higher in the maxilla than in the mandible, which conforms to recent literature; bone quality in the elderly female maxilla is reduced and primary stability may cause difficulties. 33,34,[38][39][40] Low insertion torque and consequently reduced primary stability may have an influence on early implant losswhether this also accounts for MBL remains unknown. Yet, higher values of MBL in the maxillary bone in this study could also reflect the significant influence of bone augmentation on marginal bone remodeling, as this group mainly consisted of patients with sinus floor elevations.…”

Peri‐implant marginal bone loss rate pre‐ and post‐loading: An exploratory analysis of associated factors

“…Aging negatively affects bone density and cancellous bone mass, increases cell apoptosis, but also reduces osteoblast activity (Boskey & Coleman, ). Others found aging was associated with greater marginal bone loss at implants which peaked at 50–60 years (Negri et al, ). These contradictions may be explained by the large spread of age in the present cohort.…”

The influence of the distance between narrow implants and the adjacent teeth on marginal bone levels

“…), bone quality, soft tissue‐related factors, smoking and oral hygiene habits, age and gender (Negri et al. ), bone quantity, final drill during implant placement, healing time before prosthesis delivery (Galindo‐Moreno et al. ) as well as platform‐switching (Canullo et al.…”

“…Therefore, factors that influence peri-implant bone loss at early stages are of great importance. The available literature has shown a key role of implant diameter, length and depth with respect to the bone crest (Liaje et al 2012;Zweers et al 2015), prosthesis design (Anitua et al 2015), bone quality, soft tissue-related factors, smoking and oral hygiene habits, age and gender (Negri et al 2014), bone quantity, final drill during implant placement, healing time before prosthesis delivery (Galindo-Moreno et al 2012) as well as platform-switching (Canullo et al 2010(Canullo et al , 2011(Canullo et al , 2012 and prosthesis abutment height , 2016 and connection design (Galindo-Moreno et al 2015a). A summary of this evidence shows that narrow-diameter implants that are placed below the crestal bone in patients who smoke, with under-preparation of the implant bed and restored with individually cemented crowns soon after they are placed, are more likely to lose more marginal bone in the early stages.…”