The Relationship Between Marginal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants and the Specific Characteristics of Implant-Prosthetic Treatment

Abstract

The marginal bone loss around dental implants is an important indicator that helps to evaluate the course and the final outcome of implant-prosthetic treatment. It is, therefore, important to understand the factors that may affect this. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of the specific characteristics of implant-prosthetic treatment on the marginal bone loss around implants. The study included 28 patients, aged 37-66 years, treated with dental implants. Every patient received at least one of the two types of implants: with Morse taper connection and with internal hexagonal connection. The average marginal bone loss around the implants was evaluated on the basis of the panoramic radiographs. The maximum follow-up period after implantation was 46 months. The peri-implant marginal bone loss was evaluated taking into consideration the implant localisation, the procedure of sinus lift with bone augmentation, implant type, implant diameter, vertical implant position relative to the compact bone level and the type of prosthetic restoration, the time between implantation and loading with prosthetic restoration, as well as the time between loading and the measurement of marginal bone loss. The correlation between bone loss and the selected characteristics of the treatment was assessed using generalised estimating equations (GEE). An objective analysis was enabled via the applied research model: evaluation of an impact of the specific implant-prosthetic treatment characteristics on peri-implant marginal bone loss in patients treated with implants with different implant-abutment interface systems. The results of the study showed that peri-implant marginal bone loss increased significantly with implant localisation in canine sites (compared to the localization in premolar sites), as well as with prosthetic restorations in the form of dentures (compared to bridges), and decreased when implants were placed below the compact bone level (compared to those placed at the bone level). At the same time, marginal bone loss was not significantly related to implant diameter or to the sinus lift procedure. The results obtained seem extremely useful in everyday clinical practice

New Radiological Corticalization Index as an Indicator of Implant Success Rate Depending on Prosthetic Restoration—5 Years of Follow-Up

“…Bridges with six points exhibited the least favorable mechanical properties compared to shorter or longer ones. Bridge restorations generally revealed better marginal bone preservation compared to overdentures, which is also confirmed in the literature [21].…”

“…Is this standard still valid in this century? Recent studies have shown that marginal bone loss depends on factors such as tobacco smoking, the presence or absence of platform switching, cement remnants, overloading in occlusion, poor oral hygiene, and the type of prosthetic restoration [17][18][19][20][21].…”

Clinical and radiographic study to evaluate marginal bone level around one piece and two piece of immediate loaded implants

“…The technique of immediate loading was designed because of reduced surgical trauma, improved healing, reduced time of treatment as well as conservation of bone and soft tissues and enhancement of esthetics; these is an agreement with Singh and his colleagues (10) .…”

Bone Metabolism and Dental Implant Insertion as a Correlation Affecting on Marginal Bone Remodeling: Texture Analysis and the New Corticalization Index, Predictor of Marginal Bone Loss—3 Months of Follow-Up

“…Marginal bone loss occurs when bone tissue resorbs near the neck of dental implants. Various factors can influence bone metabolism near the implant neck, such as cigarettes, oxidative stress, smoking, prosthetic restoration, surgical techniques, operator skill, torque during implant insertion, and the general condition (GC) of patients, including calcium phosphate metabolism and bone-healing capacity [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”