Early Implant Bone Loss in the Preprosthetic Phase: A Retrospective Study

Initiation of the inflammatory response begins with the surgical placement of an implant that stimulates bone remodeling. The occurrence of crestal bone loss during submerged healing affects the prognosis of an implant. Hence, this study was conducted to estimate the early implant bone loss during the preprosthetic phase on bone level implants placed equicrestally. This retrospective observational study included evaluation of crestal bone loss around 271 two-piece implants placed in 149 patients from the archived postsurgical (P1) and preprosthetic (P2) digital orthopantomographic records using MicroDicom software. The outcome was categorized based on (1) sex (male or female), (2) time of implant placement (immediate [I] vs conventional [D]), (3) duration of healing period before loading (conventional [T1] vs delayed [T2]), (4) region of implant placement (maxilla [M1] vs mandible [M2]), and (5) site of implant placement (anterior [A] vs posterior [P]). To find the significant difference between the bivariate samples in the independent groups, an unpaired sample t test was used. The average marginal bone loss during the healing phase was 0.56 ± 0.573 mm in the mesial region and 0.44 ± 0.549 mm in the distal region of the implant, with a statistically significant difference (P < .01). There was no statistically significant difference in crestal bone level with the (1) sex of the patient (male or female), (2) type of implant placement (I or D), (3) time of implant loading (T1 or T2), (4) region of implant placement (M1 or M2), or (5) site of implant in the arch (A or P) (P > .05). An average of 0.50 mm crestal bone loss occurred in the peri-implant region during the preprosthetic phase. We found that the delayed placement of an implant and a delay in the healing period would further increase the early implant bone loss. The difference in the healing period did not alter the outcome of the study.

Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss and Osteocalcin Release Kinetics in Immediately and Delayed Loaded Implants: A Randomised Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare concentration and release kinetics of osteocalcin and crestal bone loss under immediate and delayed loading conditions during osseointegration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one patients who were indicated for rehabilitation with dental implants randomly received either implant with placement of permanent prosthesis after 3 months (delayed loading) or implant with placement of permanent prosthesis within 7 days (immediate loading). Radiographic assessment of crestal bone loss at the mesial and distal surface was done at 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Peri-implant sulcular fluid was collected immediately from the buccal surface at two sites after implant insertion and also, at 7, 15, 30 and 90 days after surgery. The level of osteocalcin was evaluated using ELISA and data were compared using two sample t-test. Differences between two groups were analyzed by unpaired Student's t test. Intragroup comparison was done by repeated measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Mean crestal bone loss was lower in the immediate loading group compared to the delayed loading group at 3, 6 and 12 months (P < 0.001). Intragroup comparison revealed a statistically significant increase in osteocalcin levels in both group I (F = 26712.2) and group II (F = 10497.2) at the predetermined time intervals CONCLUSIONS: Lesser crestal bone loss and early release of osteocalcin was found in the immediately loaded condition than in the delayed loaded condition. The study substantiates that immediately loaded implants shows less crestal bone as well as early release of osteocalcin facilitating upregulation of bone metabolism, improving long term health of bone and prognosis of implants. Immediately loaded implants can be a better treatment protocol provided there is adequate bone and primary stability. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To compare marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of implant-supported splinted and non-splinted restorations (NSR).

Settings and Design

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The PROSPERO registry, which keeps track of prospective systematic reviews, also received this paper (CRD42021229477).

Material and Methods

An electronic search was done in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar searches were carried out. The search was limited to articles published in English and covered the period from January 2010 to August 2020.

Statistical Analysis Used

To conduct the meta analysis, researchers employed methodologies such as continuous measurement and odds ratios.

Results

For both qualitative and quantitative analysis, 19 scientific studies were chosen. 3682 implants were placed in 2099 patients with a mean age of 59 years (splinted, 2529; non-splinted, 1153); the mean age was not provided in 5 trials. For splinted restorations, there were statistically significant differences in MBL, indicating the former has less MBL than for NSR. Splinted restorations had much greater survival rates than NSR, according to a qualitative study. Rest prosthesis complications with or without splinting were essentially the same.

Conclusions

Splinted implant restorations lost less bone than non-splinted implant restorations, according to this meta analysis. This was particularly true for posterior restorations. Lower implant failure was associated with splinted restorations. Restorations with and without splinting had the same level of prosthetic problems.

The Microbial Neck: A Biological Review of the Various Implant–Abutment Connections

Aim:

This study reviews the importance of selecting implant systems with connection designs that ensure better long-term prognosis of the prosthesis, thus placed.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search on the PubMed database was done using MeSH keywords (“dental implant OR abutment OR connection AND microleakage OR bone loss”) to review English language articles published since the year 2011, which compared the crestal bone levels and microleakage around various implant–abutment connection designs (external hex, internal hex, and Morse taper). The search screened for articles on human trials and in vitro studies to be included within the review.

Results:

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the preliminary search, a total of four articles were included in the review for evaluating the influence of connection type on peri-implant bone loss, while nine articles were included to study the influence on bacterial leakage across the implant–abutment interface.

Conclusion:

Based on the studies reviewed, the conical connection design proved to be the most biologically stable junctional geometry because of the better microbial seal and the lesser micromovement observed in these types of implants during functional loading. Moreover, this review even emphasizes the need for more longitudinal clinical trials to assess the microbial seal of these connection designs within the actual oral environment to evaluate long-term changes in the peri-implant tissues, and subsequently even factor the prognosis of the planned prosthetic intervention.

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.

Retrospective evaluation of marginal bone loss around implants in a mandibular locator-retained denture using panoramic radiographic images and finite element analysis: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The follow-up of the peri-implant marginal bone loss is the most important criterion for the determination of implant success.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to measure marginal bone loss using panoramic radiographic images (PRI) of patients treated using a mandibular, two implant-supported, locator-retained denture and to evaluate the compatibility of these findings with those of the finite element analysis (FEA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRI of patients who had a mandibular, two implant-supported, locator-retained denture were assessed, and the mesial and distal marginal bone loss of both right- and left-sided implants was measured. Mandibular and maxillary models, which have the features of bilateral balanced occlusion, were created. The surfaces of the generated models were converted in a computer-aided design model that could be transferred to the FEA software, and the forces were defined on contacts formed in maximum intercuspation, lateral, and protrusive movement position for bilateral balanced occlusion.

RESULTS

The bone loss in the mesial and distal regions at the right- and left-sided implants was not statistically significant. Higher stresses were formed on the vestibular side under protrusive movement, on the lingual side under maximum intercuspation, on the distolingual side under left unilateral biting, and on the mesiolingual side under right unilateral biting in the FEA.

CONCLUSION

According to FEA, peri-implant bone resorption may be higher in the buccal and palatal regions, implying that panoramic radiographs can be misleading in understanding the amount of peri-implant bone resorption.

Peri-implant marginal bone loss rate pre- and post-loading: An exploratory analysis of associated factors

OBJECTIVES

To perform an exploratory analysis of factors influencing annual rates of peri-implant marginal bone loss (RBL) calculated over different time frames, at implants unaffected by peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 154 implants from 86 patients were reviewed at 1.6-6.8 years after placement. Marginal bone levels (MBL) were assessed on intraoral radiographs at three time-points: immediately post-placement, time of loading, and least 1-year post-loading. RBLs (mm/year) were computed using these three time frames and corresponding MBL changes as: RBL placement-loading, RBL loading-review, RBL placement-review. Exploratory ordination of three RBLs, corresponding time durations, and 17 background factors were used for visualization. Hierarchical linear mixed-effects models (MEM) with predictor selection were applied to RBL outcomes. The correlation of actual MBL with MBLs predicted by RBL placement-loading and RBL loading-review was tested.

RESULTS

Median RBL placement-loading was 0.9 mm/year (IQR = 2.02), loading-review was 0.06 mm/year (IQR = 0.16), and overall RBL placement-review was 0.21 mm/year (IQR = 0.33). Among-patient variance was highest for RBL placement-loading (SD = 0.66). Longer time predicted lower RBL in all time frames. Shorter time of loading significantly predicted lower RBL placement-review. Augmentation predicted lower RBL placement-loading, while anterior location and older age predicted lower RBLs placement-loading placement-review. Only MBL projected using RBL placement-loading significantly correlated with actual MBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Exploratory analysis indicated RBL varied with the time duration used for calculation in pre- and post-loading, and overall periods. In each period, RBL declined with increasing time. Earlier loading predicted lower overall RBL. Higher pre-loading RBL predicted worse actual bone level.

Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The decision to splint or to restore independently generally occurs during the planning stage, when the advantages and disadvantages of each clinical situation are considered based on the proposed treatment. However, clinical evidence to help clinicians make this decision is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was designed according to the Cochrane criteria for elaborating a systematic review and meta-analysis and adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Also, this review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017080162). An electronic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted up to November 2017. A specific clinical question was structured according to the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) approach. The addressed focused question was "Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted?" The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 4215 implants were placed in 2185 patients (splinted, 2768; nonsplinted, 1447); the mean follow-up was 87.8 months (range=12-264 months). Quantitative analysis found no significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted restorations for marginal bone loss. The assessed studies reported that 75 implants failed (3.4%), of which 24 were splinted (99.1% of survival rate) and 51 were nonsplinted (96.5% of survival rate). Quantitative analysis of all studies showed statistically significant higher survival rates for splinted restorations than for nonsplinted restorations. Ceramic chipping, screw loosening, abutment screw breakage, and soft tissue inflammation were reported in the selected studies. The quantitative analysis found no statistically significant difference in the prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted restorations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it was concluded that there was no difference in the marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations; this is especially true for restorations in the posterior region. However, splinted restorations were associated with decreased implant failure.

Crestal Bone Loss Around Adjacent Dental Implants Restored with Splinted and Nonsplinted Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the crestal bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted adjacent implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To address the focused question, "Is crestal bone loss around adjacent implants different with splinted from that with nonsplinted restorations?," indexed databases were searched from 1965 up to and including May 2016 using various combinations of the following keywords: "implant," "splinted," "nonsplinted," "unsplinted," "connected," "unconnected," "nonconnected," and "bone loss." Letters to the editor, commentaries, historic reviews, case reports, case series, animal studies, and studies on full-arch rehabilitation were excluded.

RESULTS

Six studies were included with titanium implants ranging from 114 to 1187 implants. All studies had nonsplinted and splinted restorations that ranged from 20 to 234 restorations and from 60 to 970 restorations, respectively. In all the studies, the follow-up period after the restoration placement ranged between 1 and 22 years, with a mean follow-up ranging between 3 and 10.18 ± 3.18 years. In all studies, the mean crestal bone loss for implants restored with nonsplinted restorations ranged between 0.30 ± 0.65 and 1.3 ± 0.2 mm, whereas the mean crestal bone loss for implants restored with splinted restorations ranged between 0.50 ± 0.8 and 1.22 ± 0.95 mm.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this review it is concluded that adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted fixed restorations did not exhibit a difference in crestal bone loss. The evidence from this systematic review suggests further investigation.

A comparative analysis of periimplant bone levels of immediate and conventionally loaded implants

BACKGROUND

With the trend of shortening the treatment time and reducing patient discomfort/inconveniences immediate loading of implants has emerged as an alternative approach for replacing missing natural teeth. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of immediate implant loading protocol over conventional implant loading protocol in partially edentulous mandible.

METHODS

Twenty patients were selected from out patients department who needed the replacement of one of the missing mandibular first molar. They were divided into two groups. In Group A patients implants were loaded with immediate implant loading protocol, whereas in Group B they were loaded with conventional loading protocol. Periimplant bone loss and soft tissue health were measured and compared using OPG and IOPA radiographs 06 and 12 months after implant placement.

RESULTS

One implant failed in immediate loading group (Group A), whereas all implants survived in conventional loading group (Group B). The average periimplant bone loss after 6 months and 1 year for Group A were 0.69 mm and 1.09 mm respectively, whereas it was 0.74 mm and 1.13 mm respectively for Group B. The difference in the bone loss between Group A and B was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant loading protocol has a highly acceptable clinical success rate in partially edentulous lower jaw although implant survival rate is slightly inferior to conventional loading protocol.

Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 dental implant surfaces

Dental implants are commonly used in daily practice; however, most surgeons do not really know the characteristics of these biomedical devices they are placing in their patients. The objective of this work is to describe the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 implant surfaces available on the market and to establish a simple and clear identification (ID) card for all of them, following the classification procedure developed in the Dohan Ehrenfest et al (2010) Codification (DEC) system. Fourteen implant surfaces were characterized: TiUnite (Nobel Biocare), Ospol (Ospol), Kohno HRPS (Sweden & Martina), Osseospeed (AstraTech), Ankylos (Dentsply Friadent), MTX (Zimmer), Promote (Camlog), BTI Interna (Biotechnology Institute), EVL Plus (SERF), Twinkon Ref (Tekka), Ossean (Intra-Lock), NanoTite (Biomet 3I), SLActive (ITI Straumann), Integra-CP/NanoTite (Bicon). Three samples of each implant were analyzed. Superficial chemical composition was analyzed using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy/electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis, and the 100 nm in-depth profile was established using Auger electron spectroscopy. The microtopography was quantified using light interferometry. The general morphology and nanotopography were evaluated using a field emission-scanning electron microscope. Finally, the characterization code of each surface was established using the DEC system, and the main characteristics of each surface were summarized in a reader-friendly ID card. From a chemical standpoint, of the 14 different surfaces, 10 were based on a commercially pure titanium (grade 2 or 4), 3 on a titanium-aluminum alloy (grade 5 titanium), and one on a calcium phosphate core. Nine surfaces presented different forms of chemical impregnation or discontinuous coating of the titanium core, and 3 surfaces were covered with residual aluminablasting particles. Twelve surfaces presented different degrees of inorganic pollutions, and 2 presented a severe organic pollution overcoat. Only 2 surfaces presented no pollution (Osseospeed and Ossean). From a morphological standpoint, 2 surfaces were microporous (anodization) and 12 were microrough, with different microtopographical aspects and values. Ten surfaces were smooth on the nanoscale, and therefore presented no significant and repetitive nanostructures. Four implants were nanomodified: 2 implants were nanorough (Osseospeed and Ossean), and 2 were covered with nanoparticles (NanoTite and SLActive). TiUnite and Kohno HRPS were covered with extended cracks all over the surface. Only 8 surfaces could be considered homogeneous. This systematic approach allowed the main characteristics of these commercially available products to be gathered in a single ID card. It can be used as an experimental tool or a method for controlling industrial implant productions. The DEC system could be an interesting basis for the development of a clear and simple ISO standard for dental implant surfaces and other implantable devices.