Marginal bone loss in dental implants: A literature review of risk factors and treatment strategies for prevention

Yoshiaki Arai,Makiko Takashima,Nanaka Matsuzaki,Sho Takada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_23_00223

2024-06-27

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: MBL development is multifactorial and can be reduced by considering the biological, material, and technical factors.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Marginal Bone Loss of Tissue- or Bone-Level Implants after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration in the Posterior Mandibular Region: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Xiaoting Shen,Sijia Yang,Yangbo Xu,Wenting Qi,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13144

2022-01-01

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:Purpose To analyze the marginal bone loss (Delta MBL) of tissue- or bone-level implants after placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). Materials and Methods A total of 151 patients who received 104 tissue-level or 128 bone-level implants placement with simultaneous GBR in the mandibular posterior region between January 2011 and December 2016 were included in this study. The marginal bone level (MBL) was recorded using the radiographic data obtained at implant placement, second-stage surgery, and the follow-up visit. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the Delta MBL of tissue- and bone-level implants, and the influencing factors of Delta MBL were further analyzed. Results At the last follow-up visit, the MBL of tissue-level implants was 0.73 +/- 0.86 mm, above the rough-smooth interface, while that of bone-level implants was 0.82 +/- 1.05 mm, above the implant platform. The Delta MBL of tissue-level implants was 1.03 mm, which was slightly higher than 0.81 mm of bone-level implants, but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). No contributing factor associated with Delta MBL was identified by multivariate regression analysis in this study. Conclusion Within the limits of this retrospective analysis, the Delta MBL of tissue-level implants is similar to that of bone-level implants after placed with simultaneous GBR, and both types of implants can achieve desirable marginal bone stability.
Effect of Initial Biologic Width on Crestal Bone Loss‐ a Clinical Retrospective Study of 1–5 Years

Yi Feng,Fuming He,Xin Luo,Jiaying Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.206_13358

2018-01-01

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:Background Limiting the marginal bone loss is a prerequisite for long-term stability of implants. Previous studies have evaluated the factors affecting marginal bone loss, including the mucous thickness, the depth of placement. The biologic width will form when the implants are uncovered, which unvaryingly exposes the bone around the implant neck to the oral cavity and starts bone loss, and the biologic width is formed by dissected mucous and the depth of placement of implant at initial stage. Aim/Hypothesis The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of the mucous thickness, the depth of placement and the initial biologic width on the marginal bone loss. Material and Methods The clinical and radiographic data of 181 delayed-loaded Ankylos Implants in 140 patients were collected after 1–5 years follow-up. The radiographic examination was taken after implant placement, before the second stage surgery, and after 1–5 years follow-up. The mucous thickness, the depth of placement and crestal bone loss were calculated medially and distally. The initial biologic width was defined as either the thickness of the mucous when the implant was positioned supracrestally, or the sum of the thickness of the mucous and the depth of the implant when the implant was placed below the bone level. Implants were divided into 3 groups based on the initial biologic width, Group A (width less than 3 mm, include 3 mm), Group B (between 3 mm and 4 mm, include 4 mm), and Group C (width more than 4 mm). Significance was set to 0.05. Results Implants in Group A had 0.4(0.1.0) mm bone loss mesially and 0.3(0.0.8) mm distally. For Group B, the bone loss values were m- 0.3(0.0.8) mm and d- 0.3(0.0.7) mm. Group C implants experienced bone loss of m- 0.7(0.2.1.1) mm and d- 0.6(0.1.1.0) mm. Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to find differences between groups. There was significant difference between groups (P = 0.011). Kruskal-Wallis test for implants placed below, at, or above the bone level yielded a statistically significant difference (P = 0.000). The calculation of Spearman's correlation coefficient between the mucous thickness and the marginal bone loss shows negative correlation (rs=−0.243, P = 0.001), while the depth of placement and the marginal bone loss show the positive correlation (rs=0.477, P = 0.000). Conclusions and Clinical Implications The crestal bone loss was found to be the positively correlated to the depth of placement and had negative correlated to the mucous thickness. The result may suggest that the closer the initial biologic width is to the final biologic width, the less bone loss is, and if the initial biologic width is not adequate, bone loss may occur to ensure the proper development of biologic width.
A Retrospective Study of 30,959 Implants: Risk Factors Associated with Early and Late Implant Loss

Guofen Lin,Shuhua Ye,Fengjia Liu,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12898

IF: 7.478

2018-01-01

Journal Of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract:AIM:This retrospective study assessed the risk factors associated with early and late implant loss at the patient- and implant-based analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 18,199 patients received 30,959 dental implants during the years 2011-2015. Age, gender, jaw, location, implant brands, implant length and diameter, bone augmentation procedures, and the number of implants placed per patient were recorded. A multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression was used to identify risk factors related to both early and late implant loss.RESULTS:The cumulative survival rates were 98.0% for patients and 98.7% for implants after 1-6 years observation time. A total of 183 patients with 194 implants were lost before or at the abutment connection, and 193 patients with 209 implants were lost after occlusal loading of the implant fixture. The multivariable GEE logistic regression showed that males, patients aged ≥41 years, and mandibular anterior location were risk factors for early implant loss. In the case of late implant loss, males, patients aged ≥41 years, bone augmentation and short implants were correlated with a significantly increased failure rate.CONCLUSIONS:General factors such as male sex, elderly patients, mandibular anterior location, bone augmentation and short implants were associated with implant loss.
Factors Influencing Early Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Positioned Subcrestally: A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study

Teresa Lombardi,Federico Berton,Stefano Salgarello,Erika Barbalonga,Antonio Rapani,Francesca Piovesana,Caterina Gregorio,Giulia Barbati,Roberto Di Lenarda,Claudio Stacchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8081168

IF: 3.9

2019-08-04

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Early marginal bone loss (MBL) is a non-infective remodeling process of variable entity occurring within the first year after implant placement. It has a multifactorial etiology, being influenced by both surgical and prosthetic factors. Their impact remains a matter of debate, and controversial information is available, particularly regarding implants placed subcrestally. The present multicenter prospective clinical study aimed to correlate marginal bone loss around platform-switched implants with conical connection inserted subcrestally to general and local factors. Fifty-five patients were enrolled according to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria by four clinical centers. Single or multiple implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, South Korea) were inserted in the posterior mandible with a one-stage protocol. Impressions were taken after two months of healing (T1), screwed metal-ceramic restorations were delivered three months after implant insertion (T2), and patients were recalled after six months (T3) and twelve months (T4) of prosthetic loading. Periapical radiographs were acquired at each time point. Bone levels were measured at each time point on both mesial and distal aspects of implants. Linear mixed models were fitted to the data to identify predictors associated with MBL. Fifty patients (25 male, 25 female; mean age 58.0 ± 12.8) with a total of 83 implants were included in the final analysis. The mean subcrestal position of the implant shoulder at baseline was 1.24 ± 0.57 mm, while at T4, it was 0.46 ± 0.59 mm under the bone level. Early marginal bone remodeling was significantly influenced by implant insertion depth and factors related to biological width establishment (vertical mucosal thickness, healing, and prosthetic abutment height). Deep implant insertion, thin peri-implant mucosa, and short abutments were associated with greater marginal bone loss up to six months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant bone levels tended to stabilize after this time, and no further marginal bone resorption was recorded at twelve months after implant loading.

medicine, general & internal
Implant Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss with the All-on-4 Immediate-Loading Strategy: A Clinical Retrospective Study with 1 to 4 Years of Follow-Up.

Qingxia Yang,Xiaoxu Guan,Baixiang Wang,Denghui Zhang,Jingyao Bai,Xiaoting Zhang,Yi Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.020

IF: 4.148

2022-01-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Assessing peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and its risk factors with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may clarify the risk factors for the all-on-4 (5 or 6) strategy and further improve its survival rate.Purpose The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, MBL, and associated risk factors of all-on-4 (5 or 6) prostheses after 1 to 4 years of follow-up with CBCT.Material and methods A total of 56 participants rehabilitated with 325 implants by using the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept between October 2015 and December 2019 were included. Outcome measures were cumulative implant survival (life-table analysis) and MBL. Four CBCT scans, a scan immediately after surgery (T0), a scan 1 year after surgery (T1), a scan 2 years after surgery (T2), and a scan 3 to 4 years after treatment (T3), were obtained to evaluate the MBL. The Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and linear mixed models were performed to assess the potential risk factors for MBL (alpha=.05).Results The implant survival rate was 99.38%, and the prosthesis survival rate was 100%. The reductions in the vertical buccal bone height (triangle VBBH) were 0.74 +/- 0.10 mm (T0-T1), 0.37 +/- 0.12 mm (T1-T2), and 0.15 +/- 0.14 mm (T2-T3). Except for T2-T3, the triangle VBBH showed a significant difference at T0-T1 and T1-T2 (P <=.05). The alterations in vertical mesial bone height (VMBH), vertical distal bone height (VDBH), and vertical lingual bone height (VLBH) were similar to the trend observed in VBBH. The triangle VBBH (T0-T3) was negatively correlated with the horizontal buccal bone thickness (HBBT) (T0) (r=-.394, P<.001). Linear mixed models revealed that factors such as smoking (P=.001), mandible implant site (P<.001), immediate implant (P=.026), tilted implant (P<.001), female sex (P=.003), systemic disease (P=.025), and bruxism (P=.022) negatively affected MBL. The cantilever length (CL) also had a negative effect on MBL around the implants at the distal extension (P<.001).Conclusions The high implant and prosthesis survival rates and low MBL confirmed the predictability of the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept. Smoking, mandible implant site, systemic disease, bruxism, female sex, immediate implant, tilted implant, and CL were identified as potential risk factors for MBL.
Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

Yu Wang,Jin Jiang,Ye Guan,Misi Si,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8930

2021-01-01

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of short implants 8 mm) vs standard implants (> 8 mm, < 10 mm) and to uncover risk factors influencing implant failure in short implants. Materials and Methods: Short and standard implants were compared in the aspect of survival rates, biologic and mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss. To analyze risk factors of implant failure in short implants, several variables were taken into consideration, including sex, age, time interval, arch, implant brand, additional surgery, prosthesis material, restoration, smoking status, and crown-root ratio. Results: Three hundred twenty-one short implants and 136 standard implants were retrospectively followed up from 12 to 104 months with an average of 40 months (3.33 years) in short implants and 34 months (2.83 years) in standard implants. The survival rates of short implants were 95.6% at the implant-based analysis and 94.9% at the patient-based analysis, and rates of 96.3% and 94.0%, respectively, were calculated for standard implants. No statistically significant differences were observed between short and standard implants with respect to survival rate, complications, or marginal bone loss. The failure rates were 4.2% for implants and 5.4% for patients in total implants with an average of 38 months (3.17 years). In analyzing risk factors of short implants for survival rate, single short implants resulted in a higher failure rate compared with splinted short implants, while no significant variable was found in standard implants. Conclusion: Short implants tend to be a reliable alternative in atrophic posterior regions. Splinted prostheses were more ideal for short implant restorations.
The Effect of Initial Biologic Width on Marginal Bone Loss: A Retrospective Study.

Ping Sun,Dan Yu,Xin Luo,Antian Xu,Yi Feng,Fu-Ming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9169

2022-01-01

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the short-term effect of dental implant placement, mucosa thickness, and their combined effects (initial biologic width) on marginal bone loss. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study on patients who received implant surgery in the posterior region without bone augmentation surgery between 2012 and 2016, and implants had been loaded for more than 12 months. Each patient received radiographic examination before and after implant surgery, before the stage-two surgery, and during the 1-to 5-year follow-up. The thickness of mucosa, depth of dental implant placement, and crestal bone loss were evaluated on digital radiographs. The interaction was discussed by defining the combination of initial mucosal thickness and implantation depth as the initial biologic width. The implants were divided into four study groups based on the quartile of the initial biologic width. Results: This study included 266 patients (94 male and 172 female, 22 to 85 years of age, mean age: 51.43 years), with 413 dental implants placed including 239 Straumann implants and 174 Ankylos implants. The average follow-up was 21.50 months. After 1 to 5 years, the median crestal bone loss around implants was 0.35 mm (0.30 mm for Straumann BL and 0.40 mm for Ankylos). The implants were divided into four groups: group A (<= 2.85 mm), group B (2.85 to 3.40 mm), group C (3.40 to 3.97 mm), and group D ( 3.97 mm). Group B showed significantly less crestal bone loss than group A (0.38 mm vs 0.25 mm; P < .05) and group C (0.25 mm vs 0.40 mm; P < .05) during the follow-up. Significantly more crestal bone loss around implants was observed in the thin mucosa group than in the thick mucosa group (0.50 mm vs 0.30 mm; P < .001), while implants placed beneath the bone level displayed a significantly higher amount of marginal bone loss than implants placed even with the bone crest (0.50 mm vs 0.10 mm; P < .001). Conclusion: The initial biologic width has an effect on crestal bone loss. When the initial biologic width was between 2.85 and 3.40 mm, the marginal bone loss was lowest. Based on radiographic evaluation, implants placed in thick gingiva and even with the bone level showed less alveolar marginal bone loss compared with implants placed in thin gingiva and below the crestal bone level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:190-198. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9169
A cross-sectional study for prevalence and risk factors of peri-implant marginal bone loss

Jui-Sheng Sun,Ke-Chun Liu,Min-Chih Hung,Hung-Ying Lin,Shu-Lin Chuang,Pei-Ju Lin,Jenny Zwei-Chieng Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.11.002

IF: 4.148

2023-12-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Progressive peri-implant marginal bone loss and peri-implantitis have become a growing problem, but cross-sectional studies on their prevalence and risk factors are sparse. Purpose The purpose of this cross-sectional clinical study was to investigate the prevalence of peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and to identify systemic and local risk factors. Material and methods All adult patients who had received dental implants at the National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH) during 2009 or 2010 were included. Their medical records were collected from the NTUH-integrative Medical Database. Consecutive follow-up radiographs were accessed for severity of MBL. The influence of each factor on MBL was estimated by using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Results A total of 732 participants with 1873 implants were analyzed (mean follow-up: 5.30 years). The prevalence of MBL was 59.15% at the individual level and 49.55% at the implant level. The risk indicators identified for the presence of MBL were follow-up period of more than 2 years, diagnosis of diabetes within 12 months, radiation therapy (2 years after implant placement), implant location at maxillary canine (compared with mandibular molar), and implants from the Nobel Biocare brands (Brånemark System and NobelActive). A second multivariate GEE model confirmed the association of progressive MBL with implant location at the maxillary canine and mandibular incisor and implant brand or design. Conclusions The identified risk indicators for MBL were longer follow-up period, diagnosis of diabetes, radiation therapy, implant location at maxillary canine, and implant brand or design.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Analysis of Implant Loss Risk Factors after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Study of 5404 Dental Implants

Xiaoting Shen,Sijia Yang,Yangbo Xu,Jiangang Xu,Yi Feng,Fuming He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13087

2022-01-01

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:Purpose The purpose was to analyze the risk factors for implant loss after simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). Materials and Methods Patients who underwent implant placement with simultaneous GBR between January 2011 and December 2018 were screened for this study. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was calculated using the life table method. Log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to identify potential risk factors for implant loss. The association between the investigated variables and implant loss was determined using hazard ratios (HRs) obtained from a multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results A total of 3973 patients with 5404 implants were included in this study. The CSRs of the implants at 1, 5, and 10 years were 99.6%, 98.9%, and 98.7%, respectively. Male patient (HR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.41-6.14), periodontitis (HR = 4.26, 95% CI: 2.05-9.86), tissue-level implants (HR = 3.02, 95% CI: 1.30-6.98), narrow implants (HR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.12-6.57), and implant length <= 10 mm (HR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.41-6.02) significantly increased the risk of implant loss (p < 0.05). The risk of implant loss was significantly higher in the maxillary posterior region (HR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.04-4.90) than in the maxillary anterior region (p < 0.05). Compared to Straumann, Nobel (HR = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.75-9.44) and other implant systems (HR = 14.23, 95% CI: 4.32-46.85) showed a significantly higher risk of implant loss (p < 0.05). Conclusion Male patient, periodontitis, maxillary posterior region, Nobel implant system, other implant systems, tissue-level implants, narrow implants, and implant length <= 10 mm were considered risk factors for implant loss after simultaneous GBR.
Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Pablo Galindo‐Moreno,Andrés Catena,Mario Pérez‐Sayáns,Juan Emilio Fernández‐Barbero,Francisco O'Valle,Miguel Padial‐Molina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13122

2022-07-19

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:Purpose The aim of this study was to establish an objective criterion in terms of marginal bone level (MBL) to know the prognosis of an implant. Materials and Methods A group of 176 patients in whom 590 implants were placed were included in this retrospective study. Patients older than 18 years, presenting either Kennedy class I or II edentulous section, or totally edentulous at least in one of the dental arches were included in this study. Those with any type of disturbance able to alter bone metabolism or with nontreated periodontal disease were excluded. Data on radiographic MBL at loading, 6 and 18 months later, age, gender, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, bone substratum, implant, and prosthetic features were recorded. Nonparametric receiver operating curves (ROC) were constructed for the MBL at 18 months in order to establish a distinction among high bone loser (HBL) and low bone loser (LBL) implants. Differences as a function of main variables were also determined, particularly abutment height and periodontal disease. Results HBL implants lost at least 0.48 mm of MBL 6 months after loading; they reached at least 2 mm of MBL 18 months after loading. MBL rate followed a nonlinear trend, except in implants restored over long prosthetic abutments and in patients with history of severe periodontitis; in whom the rate of MBL over the time was nearly zero. Conclusion Implants that lose more than 0.5 mm of marginal bone 6 months after loading are at great risk of not being radiographically successful anymore. Therefore, 0.5 mm of MBL is proposed as a distinctive and objective criterion of success in Implant Dentistry within a 6‐month follow‐up period. A prosthetic abutment height ≥2 mm resulted the most protective factor in the peri‐implant bone maintenance.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Marginal Bone Loss in Posterior Implants Placed at Different Levels and Different Prosthetic Designs: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum of 1-Year Follow-Up

Najla S Kasabreh,Hadyia Khurshid,Musa Q Khan,Shima Malaikah,Hom-Lay Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-23-00128

2024-06-01

Abstract:Various factors influence marginal bone loss after implant placement. This study explored the association between marginal bone loss and posterior implants positioned at different bone levels. Computer records and radiographs of patients with at least 2 adjacent implants were retrieved. Cases were categorized into nonsplinted prosthesis and splinted prosthesis groups. Radiographic measurements were conducted at the time of abutment placement (T0), 1-3 years follow-up (T1), and the last visit (T2), measuring the vertical distance between adjacent implants. Multilevel linear regression models using generalized estimating equations were employed, with a significance level set at 5% (α = 0.05). Fifty-six patient records were included, comprising 120 implants: 84 nonsplinted (70%) and 36 splinted (30%). In the nonsplinted group, marginal bone loss progression significantly depended on crestal height differences. For the mesial sides of posterior implants, marginal bone loss measured 1.0 ± 0.6 mm from T0 to T1, 2.4 ± 1.1 mm from T1 to T2, and 3.4 ± 1.2 mm from T0 to T2. Similarly, the distal sides of the most anteriorly placed implant exhibited marginal bone loss of 1.0 ± 0.7 mm from T0 to T1, 2.4 ± 1.0 mm from T1 to T2, and 3.5 ± 1.2 mm from T0 to T2. Nonsplinted implants demonstrated a higher progression of marginal bone loss. This study suggests that nonsplinted implants may lead to a more pronounced progression of marginal bone loss, particularly concerning crestal height differences, underscoring the need for further research.
Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss Between Axial and Tilted Implant: An Umbrella Review with Meta-analysis

Ahmad Al Malak,Yasmina El Masri,Jad El Masri,Hassan Al Issawi,Pascale Salameh,Georges Aoun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10885

2024-06-28

Abstract:Objectives: Several anatomical and histological limitations can complicate implant placement, angulated implant positioning appeared to compensate these limitations. However several studies suggested a higher rate of marginal bone loss and implant failure regarding tilted implants in comparison with conventional implant. Therefore this umbrella review aims to summarize and analyze all the evidence available concerning marginal bone loss and implant failure between tilted and axial implants. Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted, without any language restrictions and only systematic reviews with meta-analysis or meta-analysis studies were included. The outcomes assessed in this review were implant failure and marginal bone loss in mm. Relative risks (RRs) and the differences of the mean (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) regarding implant failure and marginal bone loss respectively. Results: in total 8 studies were included, based on the short-term results, a non-significant mean difference (MD=0.00; 95% Cl; -0.01-0.02; p-value = 0.75) was recorded between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch dentures, meanwhile a significant mean difference was recorded on a 3 years and long term follow-up reached (MD= 0.08 95% Cl = 0.05-0.11; p value<0.00001)) and (MD= 0.18; 95% Cl= 0.15-0.20; p value< 0.00001) respectively, and an insignificant difference was observed between tilted and axial implants regarding implant failure (RR=1.02; 95% Cl=0.85-1.23; p value= 0.81) Conclusion: this review based on high and moderated quality studies with low risk of bias demonstrated no significant outcome was observed between tilted implants supporting full-arch or fixed partial denture and axial implants regarding implant failure.
Influence of Soft Tissue Thickness on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fernando Suárez-López Del Amo,Guo-Hao Lin,Alberto Monje,Pablo Galindo-Moreno,Hom-Lay Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.150571

Abstract:Background: Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion, and use of a polished collar have traditionally been investigated as major contributory factors for this early remodeling. Recently, soft tissue thickness has also been investigated as a possible factor influencing this phenomenon. Hence, this study aims to further evaluate the influence of soft tissue thickness on early MBL around dental implants. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to May 2015 reporting soft tissue thickness at time of implant placement and MBL with ≥12-month follow-up. In addition, random effects meta-analyses of selected studies were applied to analyze the weighted mean difference (WMD) of MBL between groups of thick and thin peri-implant soft tissue. Metaregression was conducted to investigate any potential influences of confounding factors, i.e., platform switching design, cement-/screw-retained restoration, and flapped/flapless surgical techniques. Results: Eight articles were included in the systematic review, and five were included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analyzed to examine the influence of tissue thickness on early MBL. Meta-analysis for the comparison of MBL among selected studies showed a WMD of -0.80 mm (95% confidence interval -1.18 to -0.42 mm) (P <0.0001), favoring the thick tissue group. Metaregression of the selected studies failed to demonstrate an association among MBL and confounding factors. Conclusion: The current study demonstrates that implants placed with an initially thicker peri-implant soft tissue have less radiographic MBL in the short term.
Radiographic Evaluation of The Distance Between The Restoration Margin and The Alveolar Bone Crest in Dental Implant Patients: A Retrospective Study

Suna Selver Basak,Berceste Guler,Seyma Eken,Serap Karakıs Akcan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104935

IF: 4.991

2024-03-19

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:Objectives The recently introduced Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) identifies a restoration margin-alveolar bone crest (RM-AC) distance of less than 1.5 mm as a key risk factor for peri-implant disease among eight major risk factors. This study evaluated the impact of the RM-AC distance on marginal bone loss (MBL) through radiographic analysis. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included 77 partially edentulous patients (39 females and 38 males, aged 22 to 76 years) with 202 platform-switched conical connection implants, cement-retained, implant-supported fixed restorations, and bone-level implants placed between 2016 and 2021. Dental implants were followed for least 6 to 36 months at follow up functional loading. Study participants were categorized into Group A (RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 mm, n=69) and Group B (RM-AC distance > 1.5 mm, n=133). Twelve patients in Group B and five patients in Group A had no history of periodontal disease. The MBL was measured radiographically from the most coronal point of the implant shoulder to the alveolar bone, and the RM-AC distance was measured from the restoration margin to the alveolar crest. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for statistical evaluation. Results The incidence of MBL in Group A was statistically significant and 3.42 times higher than that in Group B. The rate of MBL in periodontitis Stage 4 was found to be 26.31 times higher than that in periodontitis Stage 2. The incidence of MBL was 6.097 and 5.02 times higher with increasing implant diameter and length, respectively. Conclusion This study conclusively demonstrates that RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 significantly increases the risk of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease. Clinical significance This study highlights the critical role of maintaining an RM-AC distance greater than 1.5 mm in the prevention of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease. Since implant diameter and length have a significant impact on the risk of MBL, it emphasizes that implant demographics should also be carefully evaluated.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck

Yang Liu,Jiawei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.07.022

Abstract:Objective: To review the influences and clinical implications of micro-gap and micro-motion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around the neck of implant. Design: Literatures were searched based on the following Keywords: implant-abutment interface/implant-abutment connection/implant-abutment conjunction, microgap, micromotion/micromovement, microleakage, and current control methods available. The papers were then screened through titles, abstracts, and full texts. Results: A total of 83 studies were included in the literature review. Two-piece implant systems are widely used in clinics. However, the production error and masticatory load result in the presence of microgap and micromotion between the implant and the abutment, which directly or indirectly causes microleakage and mechanical damage. Consequently, the degrees of microgap and micromotion further increase, and marginal bone absorption finally occurs. We summarize the influences of microgap and micromotion at the implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around the neck of the implant. We also recommend some feasible methods to reduce their effect. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients should pay more attention to the mechanisms as well as the control methods of microgap and micromotion. To reduce the corresponding detriment to the implant marginal bone, suitable Morse taper or hybrid connection implants and platform switching abutments should be selected, as well as other potential methods.
Correlation between marginal bone loss around dental implants and various systemic diseases: a cross-sectional study

Alicia Carlos,Hassan Ziada,Neamat Hassan Abubakr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-024-00566-7

2024-10-26

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Abstract:Diminished bone levels or the lack of osseointegration can lead to higher rates of failure of dental implants. The present study is aimed to evaluate the correlation between hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia, on the marginal bone loss (MBL) surrounding dental implants among patients attending the University of Nevada, Las Vegas dental clinics.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Clinical Observation on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss Around Bone Level Implants and Tissue Level Im-Plants in Posterior Region

SHI Yitian,SI Misi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-4561.2014.09.008

2014-01-01

Abstract:To compare the differences in early marginal bone loss after implant installation in the posterior region between bone level implants and tissue level implants, and to analyze the possible influence factors on peri-implant bone resorption. Methods One-hundred and five implants were placed in patients' posterior re-gion. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was measured on oral panoramic radiographs (OPG) taken immediately after implant placement and three months later. SPSS 13.0 was used for statistic analysis. Results Early marginal bone loss around tissue level implants at mesial and distal sites were(0.594±1.104)mm and (0.298±1.032) mm on aver-age, showing no significant differences with bone level implants (mesial:0.889±1.500mm,distal:0.603±1.068mm;P>0.05). Significant differences were found between implant healing patterns(submerged and non-submerged) and im-plant shape (tapered and cylinder-shaped)(all P>0.05). Conclusion Tissue level implants could be used in poste-rior region since their limited marginal bone loss as same as bone level implants. It should be cautious to use non-submerged healing pattern and tapered implants in patients with posterior edentulism.
Limited marginal bone loss in implant-supported fixed full-arch rehabilitations after 5 years of follow-up

Pablo Galindo-Moreno,Andrea Ravidà,Andrés Catena,Francisco O'Valle,Miguel Padial-Molina,Hom-Lay Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14004

Abstract:Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the 5-year results in terms of marginal bone level (MBL) around implants supporting fixed full-arch metal-ceramic restorations in a series of cases of patients who had lost their teeth in that dental arch because of severe periodontal disease. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed to evaluate the 5-year MBL results of OsseoSpeed™ Astra Tech TX implants with internal tapered conical connection. Age, gender, bone substratum, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, and prosthetic features were recorded. Mixed linear model was used to determine the influence of the different variables on MBL. Results: In this series, a total of 160 implants placed in 19 patients were evaluated. No implant failure was reported during the 5 years of follow-up. Only 14 (8.75%) implants had more than 2 mm of MBL. Abutment height, F(3,142) = 6.917, p < .001, and implant diameter, F(1,141) = 15.059, p < .001, were determined to be statistically associated with MBL. No other effect was significant. Pairwise comparisons showed that MBL was larger for abutment height = 1 (MBL = -0.987, SE = 0.186) compared with the remaining heights [-0.335 (0.171), -0.169 (0.192) and -0.247 (0.267), 2, 4 and 6 mm, respectively]. MBL was larger for narrow (-0.510, SE = 0.169) than for wide implants (-0.364, SE = 0.190). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates that the vast majority of internal conical connection implants supporting fixed full-arch metal-ceramic restorations do not suffer from relevant MBL after 5 years in function. Particularly, those implants with transmucosal abutments longer than 2 mm show less than 0.5 mm from the implant shoulder to the marginal bone.
Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Odontuya Dorj,Chin-Kai Lin,Eisner Salamanca,Yu-Hwa Pan,Yi-Fan Wu,Yung-Szu Hsu,Jerry C.-Y. Lin,Hsi-Kuei Lin,Wei-Jen Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031750

IF: 4.614

2022-02-03

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
Effect of Opposite Tooth Condition on Marginal Bone Loss around Submerged Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study with a 3-Year Follow-Up

Odontuya Dorj,Hsi-Kuei Lin,Eisner Salamanca,Yu-Hwa Pan,Yi-Fan Wu,Yung-Szu Hsu,Jerry C-Y Lin,Chin-Kai Lin,Wei-Jen Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010715

IF: 4.614

2021-10-13

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of opposite tooth conditions on change in marginal bone level (MBL) around submerged dental implants. Materials and methods: The study included healthy patients with one or two implants. Structures opposite implants were either natural teeth (NT) or fixed restorations (FRs). MBLs were measured on digital periapical radiographs at the mesial and distal aspects of each implant. Results: Sixty implants were inserted by the 3-year follow-up. Mean MBLs for NT were 0.21 ± 0.33 mm before prosthetic loading and 0.30 ± 0.41 mm 3 years later (p = 0.001). Mean MBLs with FRs were 0.36 ± 0.45 mm before loading and 0.53 ± 0.50 mm 3 years later (p < 0.001). Changes in mean MBL from the 6-month follow-up to the 1- and 3-year follow-ups were statistically significant (p < 0.01) for implants opposite NT. However, changes in mean MBL from the 6-month follow-up to the 1-year (p = 0.161) and 3-year follow-ups (p = 1.000) were not significant for implants opposite FRs. Between baseline and the 3-year follow-up, MBL change was relatively small and did not differ regarding NT and FRs. Conclusion: Bone loss was greater if submerged dental implants were opposed by FRs. MBLs around submerged implants continued to change after 3 years if NT opposed implants.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences

Marginal bone loss in dental implants: A literature review of risk factors and treatment strategies for prevention

Marginal Bone Loss of Tissue- or Bone-Level Implants after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration in the Posterior Mandibular Region: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Effect of Initial Biologic Width on Crestal Bone Loss‐ a Clinical Retrospective Study of 1–5 Years

A Retrospective Study of 30,959 Implants: Risk Factors Associated with Early and Late Implant Loss

Factors Influencing Early Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Positioned Subcrestally: A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study

Implant Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss with the All-on-4 Immediate-Loading Strategy: A Clinical Retrospective Study with 1 to 4 Years of Follow-Up.

Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors

The Effect of Initial Biologic Width on Marginal Bone Loss: A Retrospective Study.

A cross-sectional study for prevalence and risk factors of peri-implant marginal bone loss

Analysis of Implant Loss Risk Factors after Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Study of 5404 Dental Implants

Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Marginal Bone Loss in Posterior Implants Placed at Different Levels and Different Prosthetic Designs: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum of 1-Year Follow-Up

Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss Between Axial and Tilted Implant: An Umbrella Review with Meta-analysis

Influence of Soft Tissue Thickness on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Radiographic Evaluation of The Distance Between The Restoration Margin and The Alveolar Bone Crest in Dental Implant Patients: A Retrospective Study

Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck

Correlation between marginal bone loss around dental implants and various systemic diseases: a cross-sectional study

Clinical Observation on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss Around Bone Level Implants and Tissue Level Im-Plants in Posterior Region

Limited marginal bone loss in implant-supported fixed full-arch rehabilitations after 5 years of follow-up

Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Effect of Opposite Tooth Condition on Marginal Bone Loss around Submerged Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study with a 3-Year Follow-Up