An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study

Establishing a novel deep learning model for detecting peri-implantiti

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The diagnosis of peri-implantitis using periapical radiographs is crucial. Recently, artificial intelligence may apply in radiographic image analysis effectively. The aim of this study was to differentiate the degree of marginal bone loss of an implant, and also to classify the severity of peri-implantitis using a deep learning model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A dataset of 800 periapical radiographic images were divided into training (n = 600), validation (n = 100), and test (n = 100) datasets with implants used for deep learning. An object detection algorithm (YOLOv7) was used to identify peri-implantitis. The classification performance of this model was evaluated using metrics, including the specificity, precision, recall, and F1 score.

RESULTS

Considering the classification performance, the specificity was 100%, precision was 100%, recall was 94.44%, and F1 score was 97.10%.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggested that implants can be identified from periapical radiographic images using deep learning-based object detection. This identification system could help dentists and patients suffering from implant problems. However, more images of other implant systems are needed to increase the learning performance to apply this system in clinical practice.

Effect of the implant apical exposure and coverage < or ≥ 2 mm bone graft on transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 1- to 7-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage less than or greater than 2 mm on implant survival rate and peri-implant bone and soft tissue remodeling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 264 implants in 180 patients who had undergone transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective cohort study. Radiographic assessment was used to categorize the implants into three groups based on apical implant bone height (ABH): ≤ 0 mm, < 2 mm, or ≥ 2 mm. The implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) during short-term (1-3 years) and mid- to long-term (4-7 years) follow-up, and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the effect of implant apex coverage after TSFE.

RESULTS

Group 1 had 56 implants (ABH ≤ 0 mm), group 2 had 123 implants (ABH > 0 mm, but < 2 mm), and group 3 had 85 implants (ABH ≥ 2 mm). There was no significant difference in the implant survival rate between groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (p = 0.646, p = 0.824, respectively). The MBL during short-term and mid- to long-term follow-up indicated that apex coverage could not be considered a risk factor. Furthermore, apex coverage did not have a significant effect on other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, our study found that implant apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage levels less than or greater than 2 mm, did not significantly affect implant survival, short-term or mid- to long-term MBL, or peri-implant soft tissue outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on 1- to 7-year data, the study suggests that implant apical exposure and coverage levels of less than or greater than 2 mm bone graft are both valid options for TSFE cases.

Marginal bone loss around dental implants: comparison between matched groups of bruxer and non-bruxer patients: A retrospective case-control study

PURPOSE

To compare marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants in a group of bruxers in relation to a matched group of non-bruxers.

METHODS

The present record-based retrospective study included patients selected from individuals treated with dental implants at one specialist clinic in Malmö. Only implants not lost and with baseline radiographs taken within 12 months after implant placement and with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up were considered for inclusion. Univariate linear regression models and a linear mixed-effects model were performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and four patients (104 bruxers, 100 non-bruxers), with a total of 811 implants (416 in bruxers, 395 in non-bruxers) were included in the study. The results of the linear mixed-effects model suggested that bruxism, smoking, age, region of the jaws, implant diameter, and prosthesis type had a statistically significant influence on MBL over time. Individuals who are both bruxers and smokers showed greater MBL when compared to individuals who are either a bruxer or smoker, or neither (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bruxism is suggested to increase the risk of MBL over time, as well as higher age, smoking, and the combination of bruxism and smoking. Other factors that showed a correlation with increased MBL were implant diameter, region of the jaws, and prosthesis type, but it is not possible to draw robust conclusions for these factors, as the categories of these variables were very unbalanced.

Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.