A 5-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs

Influence of rough micro-threaded and laser micro-textured implant-neck on peri-implant tissues: A systematic review

Background and objective

This systematic review aimed to explore clinical outcomes of marginal or crestal bone level (MBL) and soft tissue status around implants, following the placement of rough micro-threaded/laser-microtextured surface (LMS) implants. These outcomes are compared with those following the placement of smooth machined-neck implants.

Materials and methods

Using EBSCO Information Services, we conducted a web-based search of databases such as the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE, for relevant English-language scientific papers published between January 2013 and August 2022. Prospective or retrospective controlled cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of rough micro-threaded/LMS implant necks on MBL, sulcular probing depth (PD), and/or clinical attachment loss, were included in this review.

Results

From a comprehensive literature search of 247 articles, 6 RCTs, 5 prospective studies, and 4 retrospective studies (n = 15) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. MBL with rough micro-threaded implant necks ranged from 0.12 ± 0.17 mm to 3.25 ± 0.4 mm after loading. The smooth machined-neck implants without a micro-threaded neck had a loading MBL of 0.38 ± 0.51 mm to 3.75 ± 0.4 mm. Micro-threaded implant necks showed much lower MBL than machined-neck implants. LMS implant necks had a lower peri-implant PD than machined-neck implants after 3 years of early loading (2.3 ± 0.7 mm vs. 3.8 ± 0.8 mm). The experimental and control groups showed similar gingival recessions (1.08 ± 0.4 mm vs. 2.46 ± 0.3 mm). Meta-analysis was not feasible owing to heterogeneity of the studies.

Conclusion

Under functional loading, a roughened micro-threaded design for the implant neck could significantly lower MBL. Furthermore, PD and MBL were much lower around LMS neck implants than those around machined-neck or micro-threaded implants.

Influence of titanium implant macrodesign on peri-implantitis occurrence: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether implant macrodesign parameters interacting with implant time in function (Tf) could influence the peri-implantitis occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and two patients (55.17 ± 11.2 years old) with diagnosed early/moderate peri-implantitis around endosseous implants with implant-supported prosthetics reconstruction (n = 139) were recruited. Implant macrodesign (implant shape, thread number, implant collar), clinical parameters (peri-implant probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinised tissue width (KTW), plaque index, bleeding on probe), implant placement localisation and region, and Tf were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

Peri-implantitis occurred approximately 6.1 ± 3.38 years after implant loading. There was a significant positive correlation between the implant macrodesign and Tf. Peri-implantitis rates were statistically significantly higher in implants with a cylindric shape and triple-thread in the posterior part of the mandible (p = 0.037 and 0.012, respectively). The thread number and implant shape interacting with Tf showed statistically significant influences on CAL and PPD increase (p < 0.05). Results indicated a statistically positive interaction between Tf and KTW decrease around the implants with microthreaded collar (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Peri-implantitis might be presented as a time-dependent disease. Implant-based factors, such as Tf and implant macrodesign, could influence peri-implantitis occurrence, exacerbate clinical parameters, and promote progressive bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Peri-implantitis can be affected by implant macrodesign and Tf. The implant body shape, thread number, and design of the implant collar may be considered peri-implantitis-related risk indicators that should be taken into account in proper implant planning and therapy.

Effect of microthread design on the preservation of marginal bone around immediately placed implants: a 5-years prospective cohort study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the microthread design at the implant neck on the preservation of marginal bone around immediately-placed implants in a 5-year follow up.

Methods

Thirty patients received 41 immediately placed implants which were randomly assigned to treatment groups with microthreaded implants (test group, n = 22) or threaded implants (control group, n = 19). Clinical and radiographic analyses were carried out after 1 and5 years. Plaque index, bleeding on probing, suppuration, probing depth and marginal bone loss were subject to evaluations. The results were analyzed with the T-test, Fisher’s exact test and Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

No implants failed; thirty-five implants (in 27 patients); 21 microthreaded and 14 threaded implants; completed the 5 year follow up. The mean values of the marginal bone loss in microthreaded and threaded groups were 1.12 ± 0.95 mm and 0.87 ± 0.78 mm, respectively during an observation period of 70.9 ± 10.4 months; the differences in marginal bone loss and other pre-implant parameters were not significant between groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both implant designs showed acceptable results in terms of the clinical parameters and marginal bone level. Within the limitation of this study, the results did not demonstrate any superiority of the microthread design compared to threaded one in marginal bone preservation around immediately placed implants over 5 years of loading.

What is the influence of implant surface characteristics and/or implant material on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis? A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To answer the focused question, 'In animals or patients with dental implants, does implant surface characteristics and/or implant material have an effect on incidence and progression of peri-implantitis?'

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pre-clinical in vivo experiments on experimental peri-implantitis and clinical trials with any aim and design, and ≥5 years follow-up, where the effect of ≥2 different type of implant material and/or surface characteristics on peri-implantitis incidence or severity, and/or progression, implant survival or losses due to peri-implantitis, and/or marginal bone levels/loss was assessed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses based on data of pre-clinical experiments, using the ligature induced peri-implantitis model in the dog, indicated that after the spontaneous progression phase implants with a modified surface showed significantly greater radiographic bone loss (effect size 0.44 mm; 95%CI 0.10-0.79; p = .012; 8 publications) and area of infiltrated connective tissue (effect size 0.75 mm² ; 95%CI 0.15-1.34; p = .014; 5 publications) compared to non-modified surfaces. However, in 9 out of the 18 included experiments, reported in 25 publications, no significant differences were shown among the different implant surface types assessed. Clinical and/or radiographic data from 7605 patients with 26,188 implants, reported in 31 publications (20 RCTs, 3 CTs, 4 prospective cohort, and 4 retrospective studies; 12 with follow-up ≥10 years), overall did not show significant differences in the incidence of peri-implantitis, when this was reported or could be inferred, among the various implant surfaces. In general, high survival rates (90-100%) up to 30 years and no clinically relevant differences in marginal bone loss/levels, merely compatible with crestal remodelling, were presented for the various implant types.

CONCLUSION

Pre-clinical in vivo experiments indicate that surface characteristics of modified implants may have a significant negative impact on peri-implantitis progression, while clinical studies do not support the notion that there is a difference in peri-implantitis incidence among the various types of implant surfaces. No assumptions can be made regarding the possible impact of implant material on incidence and/or peri-implantitis progression due to limited information.

Marginal Bone Loss around Machined Smooth Neck Implants Compared to Rough Threaded Neck Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss, compared to machined smooth neck implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (up to March 04, 2020), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to March 04, 2020), and EMBASE (1980 to March 04, 2020), and reference lists of relevant manuscripts and relevant systematic reviews. Grey literature was sought using Grey Literature Net-Work Service (www.opengrey.eu) and The Grey Literature Report (www.greylit.org). Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared the effects of machined smooth neck implants versus rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss were included. Two review authors selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from included studies independently. The meta-analysis was carried out with Review Manager v5.3 software that compared marginal bone loss between rough threaded neck implants and machined smooth neck implants.

RESULTS

This review included 8 manuscripts (2 randomized controlled trials and 6 controlled clinical trials) from 6 clinical studies. The marginal bone loss around the rough threaded neck implants was significantly less than that around machined smooth neck ones (MD: -0.43 mm, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.22 mm; p < 0.0001). In the subgroup with different platform connections, less marginal bone loss was observed around the rough threaded neck implants with platform switching (MD: -0.67 mm, 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.48 mm; p < 0.00001) or with regular platform (MD: -0.28 mm, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.18 mm; p < 0.00001). The statistical analysis of the subgroups with functional loading for 3 or 6 months (MD: -0.39 mm; 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.18 mm; p = 0.0003) and 1 year or longer (MD: -0.43 mm, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.22 mm; p < 0.0001) suggested that the rough threaded neck implants helped to reduce marginal bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review suggested that rough threaded neck implants may be helpful in maintaining the amount of marginal bone around implants. Larger sample size, longer follow-up periods and well-conducted randomized controlled trials are necessary to further prove the validity of the findings.

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

To evaluate implant loss (IL) and marginal bone loss (MBL); follow-up period of up to 10 years after prosthetic loading. Retrospective multi-centre cross-sectional cohort study. Double analysis: (1) all the implants (n = 456) were analysed; (2) to allow for possible cluster error, one implant per patient (n = 143) was selected randomly. Statistical analysis: Spearman's correlation coefficient; Kruskal-Wallis (post-hoc U-Mann-Whitney); Chi-square (post-hoc Haberman). (1) Analysing all the implants (456): IL was observed in patients with past periodontitis (6 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.05), short implants (12 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001) and when using regenerative surgery (11.3 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001); greater MBL was observed among smokers (0.39 ± 0.52 vs. 0.2 ± 0.29, p < 0.01), maxillary implants (0.28 ± 0.37 vs. 0.1 ± 0.17, p < 0.0001), anterior region implants (0.32 ± 0.36 vs. 0.21 ± 0.33, p < 0.001), external connection implants (0.2 ± 0.29 vs. 0.63 ± 0.59, p < 0.0001), and 2-3 years after loading (p < 0.0001). (2) analysing the cluster (143): IL was observed in smokers (18.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05), splinted fixed crowns (12.9%, p < 0.01), short implants (22.2 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.01) and when using regenerative surgery (19.2 vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01); greater MBL was observed in maxillary implants (0.25 ± 0.35 vs. 0.11 ± 0.18, p < 0.05), in the anterior region (p < 0.05), in the first 3 years (p < 0.01), in external connection implants (0.72 ± 0.71 vs. 0.19 ± 0.26, p < 0.01) and in short implants (0.38 ± 0.31 vs. 0.2 ± 0.32, p < 0.05). There is greater risk in smokers, patients with past periodontal disease, external connection implants, the use of short implants and when regenerative techniques are used. To prevent MBL and IL, implantologists should be very meticulous in indicating implants in patients affected by these host factors.

Influence of marginal bone loss on peri-implantitis: Systematic review of literature

Background

The marginal bone of dental implants is subjected to slight load modifications over time, conditioning implant survival. Objective: Perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing the factors that contribute to marginal bone loss (MBL) and the subsequent development of peri-implantitis.

Material and Methods

Bibliographic research in the databases PubMed, Medline and Scopus between 2010 and 2018 was performed. The inclusion criteria were articles published in the last 10 years and that were in English or Spanish, that were carried out on humans, that were cohort studies, that included cases and controls or that used randomized clinical trials. Exclusion criteria removed articles that contained clinical cases, case series or systematic reviews.

Results

A total of 90 articles were analyzed that examined all the factors reported in the literature, such as idiosyncratic factors, toxic habits, systemic drugs and implant characteristics (diameter, length, type surface, implant connection, implant design and type of platform at the moment of the prosthetic load). Discussion: Patient characteristics and associated pathologies must be taken into account when assessing MBL. MBL in all dental implants can be considered independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation and the moment of load; this was emphasized. The MBL is smaller in dental implants with rough surfaces, switch platforms and infracrestal localization, as they are of multifactorial origin.

Conclusions

All the reviewed articles maintain a common criterion regarding the concept and measurement of the MBL and highlighting the importance of radiodiagnosis for quantification. Longterm prospective studies with unified criteria are needed to reduce bias by identifying the most relevant factors in MBL.

Key words:Marginal bone loss, dental implant, peri-implantitis.

Titanium dental implants with different collar design and surface modifications: A systematic review on survival rates and marginal bone levels

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of dental implants with different neck characteristics.

METHODS

A protocol-oriented search aimed at the question: "In patients subjected to tooth replacement with screw-type dental implants does the modification of the implant neck macro- or microgeometry contribute to the improvement of survival rates and maintenance of the peri-implant marginal bone levels?" Primary outcomes were survival and marginal bone level (MBL) changes evaluated on randomized controlled trials with >10 participants and follow-up >1 year. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The review follows the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies compared: (a) One- versus two-piece implants (N = 7); (b) Two-piece implants with different neck characteristics (machined and rough collars, microthreads, LASER microtexturing) (N = 21); (c) Two-piece implants with macrogeometry modifications (tapering, back-tapering, and scalloping) (N = 6). One- and two-piece implants showed similar survival (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.12, 1.66], p = 0.23) and MBL changes (WMD = 0.09 mm, 95% CI: [-0.27, 0.45], p = 0.64) at 1-year post-loading. Machined collar implants have higher risk of early failure than rough collar implants (RR = 3.96, 95% CI: [1.12, 13.93], p = 0.03) and 0.43 mm higher bone resorption (95% CI: [0.0, 0.86], p = 0.05). Microthreads (WMD = 0.07 mm, 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.15], p = 0.10) and LASER microtexturing (WMD = 0.15 mm, 95% CI: [-0.35, 0.65], p = 0.56) do not reduce bone resorption. Scalloped implants have 1.26 mm higher resorption (95% CI: [0.72, 2.00], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One- and two-piece implants have similar survival and MBL changes. Rough collar implants have lower MBL changes than machined collar implants. Additional modifications to rough collars are irrelevant.

Microthreaded Implants and Crestal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review

This systematic literature review investigated the effect of microthreaded-neck dental implants on crestal bone loss. Using the participants, interventions, comparison groups, outcomes, and study design (PICO) system, we addressed the following focused question: Do microthreaded-neck dental implants positively affect the crestal bone level around dental implants? We searched 3 electronic databases to find articles published between January 1995 and June 2016 that contained any combination of the following keywords: dental implant, microthread, microthreaded, crestal bone level, crestal bone loss, and alveolar bone level. We excluded case reports, review articles, letters to the editor, commentaries, and articles published in a language other than English. We found a total of 70 articles. After eliminating duplicates and applying PICO eligibility criteria, we selected only articles that reported the results of randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, case control studies, cross-sectional studies, or other types of clinical trials that compared the microthreaded implant design with other implant designs. We were left with 23 articles for review. The 23 articles reported crestal bone loss ranging from .05 mm to .9 mm, with a range of 12 to 96 months of follow-up. Less crestal bone was lost with dental implants that had a microthreaded neck design than with machined-surface or conventional rough-surface dental implants. Thus, microthreaded dental implants are a better choice than are implants with other designs. Future studies should use standardized imaging techniques to evaluate the placement of these implants in bone-augmented sites.

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

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.

Influence of Fixture Thread Exposure on Marginal Bone Level Around Different Implant Systems: A Preliminary Study in Dogs

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of implant neck structures on marginal bone loss around intentionally exposed implant fixtures by histomorphometric analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four implants representing 3 implant systems were placed in three dogs; an implant system with SLA surface without microthreads (group A); one with SLA + calcium surface without microthreads (group B); and one with SLA surface with microthreads (group C). The histomorphometric analyses for vertical defect length (VDL), infrabony defect height (IDH), and defect depth (DD) were performed at the buccal and lingual sides of each fixture.

RESULTS

The VDL was lower in group A relative to groups B and C on the buccal and lingual sides. The IDH and DD were higher in group A than group C on the buccal and lingual sides; however, no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in VDL, IDH, and DD on the buccal and lingual sides of the fixtures.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary study, marginal bone resorption pattern in the canine mandible varied according to the neck design of each implant fixture. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to confirm the effect of microthreads and surface roughness on the marginal bone loss at the exposed implant fixture.

Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. It is important to understand the influence of different collar designs on peri-implant marginal bone loss, especially in the critical area. Objectives. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare dental implants with different collar surfaces, evaluating marginal bone loss and survival rates of implants. Methods. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective studies, which evaluated dental implants with different collar surface in the same study. Results. Twelve articles were included, with a total of 492 machined, 319 rough-surfaced, and 352 rough-surfaced microthreaded neck implants. There was less marginal bone loss at implants with rough-surfaced and rough-surfaced microthreaded neck than at machined-neck implants (difference in means: 0.321, 95% CI: 0.149 to 0.493; p < 0.01). Conclusion. Rough and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants are considered a predictable treatment for preserving early marginal bone loss.

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

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.