Bone loss at implants and teeth in the same segment of the dentition in partially dentate subjects

Osteoimmune regulation underlies oral implant osseointegration and its perturbation

In the field of biomaterials, an endosseous implant is now recognized as an osteoimmunomodulatory but not bioinert biomaterial. Scientific advances in bone cell biology and in immunology have revealed a close relationship between the bone and immune systems resulting in a field of science called osteoimmunology. These discoveries have allowed for a novel interpretation of osseointegration as representing an osteoimmune reaction rather than a classic bone healing response, in which the activation state of macrophages ((M1-M2 polarization) appears to play a critical role. Through this viewpoint, the immune system is responsible for isolating the implant biomaterial foreign body by forming bone around the oral implant effectively shielding off the implant from the host bone system, i.e. osseointegration becomes a continuous and dynamic host defense reaction. At the same time, this has led to the proposal of a new model of osseointegration, the foreign body equilibrium (FBE). In addition, as an oral wound, the soft tissues are involved with all their innate immune characteristics. When implant integration is viewed as an osteoimmune reaction, this has implications for how marginal bone is regulated. For example, while bacteria are constitutive components of the soft tissue sulcus, if the inflammatory front and immune reaction is at some distance from the marginal bone, an equilibrium is established. If however, this inflammation approaches the marginal bone, an immune osteoclastic reaction occurs and marginal bone is removed. A number of clinical scenarios can be envisioned whereby the osteoimmune equilibrium is disturbed and marginal bone loss occurs, such as complications of aseptic nature and the synergistic activation of pro-inflammatory pathways (implant/wear debris, DAMPs, and PAMPs). Understanding that an implant is a foreign body and that the host reacts osteoimmunologically to shield off the implant allows for a distinction to be drawn between osteoimmunological conditions and peri-implant bone loss. This review will examine dental implant placement as an osteoimmune reaction and its implications for marginal bone loss.

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

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.

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

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.

Does implant location influence the risk of peri-implantitis?

Peri-implantitis is characterized by nonreversible and progressive loss of supporting bone and is associated with bleeding and/or suppuration on probing. Peri-implant disease is considered as the main etiologic factor related to implant failure. Peri-implant disease has a pathogenesis similar to that of periodontal disease, both being triggered by an inflammatory response to the biofilm accumulation. Although the prevalence of peri-implantitis has been evaluated by several clinical studies with different follow-ups, there are currently little data on the impact of implant location and the prevalence of peri-implantitis. The aim of this review, therefore, was to summarize the evidence concerning the prevalence of peri-implantitis in relation to implant location and associated risk predictors. Even though most studies evaluating the prevalence of peri-implantitis in relation to implant location are cross-sectional or retrospective, they suggest that the occurrence of peri-implantitis is most prevalent in the anterior regions of the maxilla and mandible. Moreover, it seems that there is a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis in the maxilla than in the mandible.

Two- and ten-year follow-up of patients responding and non-responding to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A retrospective evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To report a follow-up of patients following the surgical anti-infective treatment of peri-implantitis and to identify possible risk indicators for the progression of disease during supportive peri-implant therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Following peri-implant surgery, 41 patients (213 implants) were enrolled in a supportive peri-implant therapy. At the 2-year follow-up, two groups of patients were identified, with or without residual peri-implant pockets (responding and non-responding group). Eighteen patients (85 implants) of the non-responding group were followed for further 8 years.

RESULTS

At the 2-year examination, 73 of the 117 treated implants (62.4%) presented healthy peri-implant condition, while 44 (37.6%) presented persisting peri-implantitis associated with substantial bone loss before treatment. The 10-year examination of the non-responding group revealed that 1) 84% of the implants that regained health following surgery remained healthy during the entire observation period; 2) 66% of the implants with residual pockets following surgery maintained stable peri-implant condition; and 3) 29% of all treated implants showed disease progression, and 11 of those were extracted. Presence of pockets at 3-4 sites of the implants was identified as risk indicator for progression of peri-implantitis.

CONCLUSION

The peri-implant health achieved following therapy was maintained for most of the implants during the follow-up. Residual pockets were a frequent finding at implants with substantial bone loss before treatment. Presence of pockets around the entire circumference of the implants resulted as a risk indicator for further disease progression. The probability of progression of peri-implant disease increased with increased observation time.

On inflammation-immunological balance theory-A critical apprehension of disease concepts around implants: Mucositis and marginal bone loss may represent normal conditions and not necessarily a state of disease

BACKGROUND

Oral implants have displayed clinical survival results at the 95%-99% level for over 10 years of follow up. Nevertheless, some clinical researchers see implant disease as a most common phenomenon. Oral implants are regarded to display disease in the form of mucositis or peri-implantitis. One purpose of the present article is to investigate whether a state of disease is necessarily occurring when implants display soft tissue inflammation or partially lose their bony attachment. Another purpose of this article is to analyze the mode of defense for implants that are placed in a bacteria rich environment and to analyze when an obtained steady state between tissue and the foreign materials is disturbed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present article is authored as a narrative review contribution.

RESULTS

Evidence is presented that further documents the fact that implants are but foreign bodies that elicit a foreign body response when placed in bone tissue. The foreign body response is characterized by a bony demarcation of implants in combination with a chronic inflammation in soft tissues. Oral implants survive in the bacteria-rich environments where they are placed due to a dual defense system in form of chronic inflammation coupled to immunological cellular actions. Clear evidence is presented that questions the automatic diagnostics of an oral implant disease based on the finding of so called mucositis that in many instances represents but a normal tissue response to foreign body implants instead of disease. Furthermore, neither is marginal bone loss around implants necessarily indicative of a disease; the challenge to the implant represented by bone resorption may be successfully counteracted by local defense mechanisms and a new tissue-implant steady state may evolve. Similar reactions including chronic inflammation occur in the interface of orthopedic implants that display similarly good long-term results as do oral implants, if mainly evaluated based on revision surgery in orthopedic cases. The most common mode of failure of orthopedic implants is aseptic loosening which has been found coupled to a reactivation of the inflammatory- immune system.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants survive in the body due to balanced defense reactions in form of chronic inflammation and activation of the innate immune system. Ten year results of oral and hip /knee implants are hence in the 90+ percentage region. Clinical problems may occur with bone resorption that in most cases is successfully counterbalanced by the defense/healing systems. However, in certain instances implant failure will ensue characterized by bacterial attacks and/or by reactivation of the immune system that now will act to remove the foreign bodies from the tissues.

Assessment of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life for Complex Mandibular Defects Rehabilitated with Computer-guided Implant Restoration

The individuals who have been afflicted with mandibular defects involving soft and hard tissue loss are subjected to functional, psychological and social consequences. Rehabilitation is of prime importance in restoring self confidence and improving the quality of life. Complex mandibular defects can be successfully rehabilitated with the three dimensional (3D) computerized diagnostic technique (Simplant-Dentsply sirona implant). one of the important tools for measuring the oral health status by scale knows as oral health impact profile (OHIP). OHIP is a scale particularly designed to measure the quality of life and its influence pertaining to functional and psychological aspects. This report describes the prosthetic rehabilitation posttraumatic mandibular defect with 3D SimPlant software and stereolithography. With the application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology, guided implant prosthesis could definitely improve masticatory performance and esthetics, thereby enhancing oral health-related quality of life.

Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants

Successful osseointegration is the result of a controlled foreign body reaction to dental implants. Osseointegrated implants have demonstrated excellent long-term survivability, although they may be subject to limited marginal bone loss. Marginal bone loss during the first few years after implant placement seldom represents disease, but is instead the result of an adaptive bone response to surgical trauma and implant loading. It is not uncommon for implants with early marginal bone loss to enter a long-lasting state of bone stability. Extensive bone resorption after the first year is generally due to an exacerbation of adverse body reactions caused by non-optimal implant components, adverse surgery or prosthodontics and/or compromised patient factors. Disease in the form of peri-implantitis is a late complication that affects some implants with suppuration and rapid loss of crestal bone, and is probably caused by bacterial pathogens and immunological reactions. Unfortunately, the literature is not consistent with respect to the type or magnitude of clinical implant problems, including how they are defined and diagnosed. If the peri-implantitis diagnosis is confined to cases with infection, suppuration and significant bone loss, the frequency of the disease is relatively low, which is in sharp contrast to the frequencies reported with unrealistic definitions of peri-implantitis. We suggest that when modern implants are placed by properly trained individuals, only 1-2% of implants show true peri-implantitis during follow-up periods of 10 years or more. Peri-implantitis must be separated from the initial and self-limiting marginal bone loss.