Influence of Apico-Coronal Implant Placement on Post-Surgical Crestal Bone Loss in Humans

Preloading peri-implant crestal bone loss: A retrospective study of incidence and related factors

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of preloading crestal bone loss (PLCBL) and to identify the patient-related and implant-related factors associated with PLCBL.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort examined the dental records of patients who received at least one dental implant. PLCBL was defined as a reduction ⩾0.5 mm and severe PLCBL (primary variable) as a reduction ⩾1.5 mm in mesial and/or distal bone level, measured from the day of implant placement to uncovering or abutment installation/crown delivery. The incidence of PLCBL and patient and implant variables were recorded. Bivariate analysis and binary logistic regression identified factors associated with PLCBL ⩾0.5 mm and ⩾1.5 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 746 dental implants placed in 361 patients from January 2011 to July 2021 was included in the analyses. Of the implants assessed, 24.4% (n = 182) exhibited PLCBL ⩾ 0.5 mm and 10.5% (n = 78) presented severe PLCBL (i.e., ⩾1.5 mm). Males (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-3.07), patients with diabetes (OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.73-6.42), and those allergic to penicillin (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.57-6.22) were more likely to experience severe PLCBL (p < 0.05). Implants placed in the anterior area (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.16-3.73), with bone-level platform-abutment connection (OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 1.94-11.49) and inserted supracrestally (OR = 3.77, 95% CI = 1.84-7.72), presented a greater risk of developing severe PLCBL (p < 0.05). Implants placed in a previously grafted area presented a lower likelihood of developing severe PLCBL (OR = 0.489, 95% CI = 0.28-0.84).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PLCBL ⩾ 0.5 mm and ⩾1.5 mm was 24.4% and 10.5%, respectively. Male sex, diabetes, allergy to penicillin, anterior location, bone-level platform-abutment connection, and supracrestal implant placement are potential risk factors for severe PLCBL. A previously grafted area is a potential protective factor.

How do the dimensions of peri-implant mucosa affect marginal bone loss in equicrestal and subcrestal position of implants? A 1-year clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

There is evidence that the apico-coronal implant position and the mucosal phenotype can affect the extent of peri-implant bone loss. This clinical trial analyzes the bone remodeling and marginal bone loss that occur around conical-connection implants placed equicrestally and subcrestally, assessing the effect of the peri-implant soft-tissue phenotype.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients received 56 implants of distinct diameters (3.5 mm Ø n = 6; 4.3 mm Ø n = 41; 5 mm Ø n = 9) in the posterior part of the maxilla or mandible. The implants were placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, depending on the initial supracrestal tissue height (STH). After 3 months of non-submerged healing, single metal-ceramic screw-retained implant-supported crowns were placed. Longitudinal measurements of STH, mucosal thickness and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were made at the time of implant placement (T0), crown placement (T1), and after 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) of prosthetic loading. At each of these points, a radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling and marginal bone loss was also performed.

RESULTS

STH was significantly greater for implants placed >1 mm subcrestally than for those placed 1 mm subcrestally. After 12 months of follow-up, a very significant (p < 0.001) loss of KMW was observed, in addition to a marginal bone loss of 0.08 ± 0.1, 0.15 ± 0.2, and 0.14 ± 0.2 mm in the groups placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, respectively. After the multiple linear regression, marginal bone loss was found to depend primarily on KMW (β = -0.43), while also being affected by STH (β = 0.32) and implant diameter (β = -0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Marginal bone loss may be influenced by the position with respect to the bone crest, as well as the KMW, STH, and implant diameter. However, more well-controlled studies are needed to verify these above-mentioned findings with different implant designs and connections.

Association between Gingival Biotype and Crestal Bone Loss in Implants Placed in Anterior Maxilla

BACKGROUND

When bone loss occurs around an implant, it can cause esthetic compromise, which might affect the tissue level design. Thus, bone level design implants are usually preferred if a natural emergence profile is important. The gingival biotype had been identified as a significant factor in the stability of crestal bone.

AIM

The aim of the current study is to analyze the gingival biotype and crestal bone in implants placed in anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

retrospective study was conducted using the case records of patients in University Hospital. Data on the gingival biotype and crestal bone loss in implants placed in anterior maxilla were collected (sample size = 96 patients) and analyzed for association with age and gender by descriptive statistics and chi-square association.

RESULTS

In thick gingival biotype 59.3% of the cases showed no crestal bone loss and 5.2% of the patients showed only 1 mm of bone loss, but in case of thin gingival biotype, 16.6% of patients had 1 mm of bone loss, 5.2% of them has 2 mm of bone loss, and 1% of them had bone loss of 3 mm and above, with a significant p value of 0.02 (less than 0.05) showing a strong association between gingival biotype and crestal bone loss around implants.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that there exists a significant association between gingival biotype and crestal bone loss around implants placed in anterior maxilla.

Crestal and Subcrestal Placement of Morse Cone Implant-Abutment Connection Implants: An In Vitro Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Study

The issue of dental implant placement relative to the alveolar crest, whether in supracrestal, equicrestal, or subcrestal positions, remains highly controversial, leading to conflicting data in various studies. Three-dimensional (3D) Finite Element Analysis (FEA) can offer insights into the biomechanical aspects of dental implants and the surrounding bone. A 3D model of the jaw was generated using computed tomography (CT) scans, considering a cortical thickness of 1.5 mm. Subsequently, Morse cone implant-abutment connection implants were virtually positioned at the model's center, at equicrestal (0 mm) and subcrestal levels (-1 mm and -2 mm). The findings indicated the highest stress within the cortical bone around the equicrestally placed implant, the lowest stress in the -2 mm subcrestally placed implant, and intermediate stresses in the -1 mm subcrestally placed implant. In terms of clinical relevance, this study suggested that subcrestal placement of a Morse cone implant-abutment connection (ranging between -1 and -2 mm) could be recommended to reduce peri-implant bone resorption and achieve longer-term implant success.

Association of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use with marginal bone level changes around osseointegrated dental implants: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are used for the management of anxiety and depression. Existing evidence shows their negative impact on implant osseointegration, survival rates, and peri-implant health. Currently, there are limited data on their effect on peri-implant marginal bone levels. The primary goal of this retrospective study is to evaluate the association between SSRIs use and marginal bone level (MBL) changes around osseointegrated dental implants over time.

METHODS

Records from patients who received at least one dental implant between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. Information related to medical history, SSRI use, and the implant site was obtained from patients' electronic charts. Mesial and distal MBLs were measured relative to the implant platform on digital intraoral radiographs, taken at the time of prosthesis installation and at the most recent follow-up visit. MBL changes were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 152 dental implants from 105 patients were included. The mean follow-up period was 46.97 ± 21.87 months. The mean MBL change was significantly greater for SSRI users (0.41 ± 0.76 mm) compared to non-users (0.04 ± 0.65 mm) [MD = 0.37 mm, p = 0.00, 95% CI: (-0.61)-(-0.15 mm)]. Mesial MBL change of 0.42 ± 0.84 mm and 0.02 ± 0.71 mm was noted for SSRI users and non-users, respectively. The distal MBL change was 0.4 ± 0.93 mm and 0.07 ± 0.73 mm, respectively. Smoking, sex, and implant location did not seem to influence the MBL differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SSRIs is associated with greater marginal bone loss around osseointegrated dental implants in function for a mean period of 3.8 years.

Marginal bone changes around platform-switched conical connection implants placed 1 or 2 mm subcrestally: A multicenter crossover randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study analyzes early marginal bone modifications occurring around platform-switched implants with conical connection placed 1 or 2 mm subcrestally.

METHODS

This crossover randomized controlled trial enrolled partially edentulous patients needing two implants in either the posterior maxilla or mandible. Each patient received two platform-switched implants with conical connection inserted 2 mm (Test) and 1 mm (Control) subcrestally. Definitive abutments were immediately connected and, after 4 months of unsubmerged healing, screwed metal-ceramic crowns were delivered. Radiographs were taken at implant placement (T0), prosthesis delivery (T1), and after 1 year of prosthetic loading (T2).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (25 males and 26 females; mean age 61.2 ± 12.1 years) totaling 102 implants were included in the final analysis. Mean peri-implant bone level (PBL) reduction from T0 to T2 was not significantly different around Test (0.49 ± 0.32 mm) and Control implants (0.46 ± 0.35 mm; p = 0.66). Multivariate linear regression models highlighted a significant positive correlation between history of periodontitis and PBL reduction. At T2, no Test group implant and 6 Control group implants exhibited PBL below the implant platform (11.8% of Control group implants).

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in peri-implant marginal bone changes were demonstrated after 1 year of prosthetic loading between platform-switched implants with conical connection inserted either 1 or 2 mm subcrestally. However, 2 mm subcrestal placement resulted in deeper implant positioning at T2, with no exposure of treated implant surface and potential preventive effect against subsequent peri-implant pathology.

Marginal bone loss around crestal or subcrestal dental implants: prospective clinical study

Objectives

The stability of crestal bone has been reported as a major factor in the success of dental implants. Implants can be placed in an equicrestal (crestal) or subcrestal position. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant depth placement on marginal bone loss.

Materials and Methods

The study was created in a split-mouth design. Immediately after implant surgery, digital parallel radiographs were prepared and levels of bone were measured where marginal bone loss and bone level changes occurred. These measurements were repeated at 3-month and 6-month follow-up periods.

Results

In this interventional study, 49 implants were evaluated in 18 patients. Primary bone height was not significant between the intervention and control groups in both mesial and distal aspects at 3 months and 6 months from the baseline. The mean marginal bone loss on the mesial side was 1.03 mm in the subcrestal group and 0.83 mm in the crestal group. In addition, mean marginal bone loss on the distal side was 0.88 mm and 0.81 mm in the subcrestal and crestal groups, respectively. Marginal bone loss was not significantly different between sexes, the maxilla or mandible, and in the anterior or posterior regions as well as between different lengths and diameters of implants.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in terms of marginal bone loss between crestal and subcrestal implants.

Impact of mucosal phenotype on marginal bone levels around tissue level implants: A prospective controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this 1-year prospective clinical trial was to compare clinical parameters and marginal bone levels (MBLs) around tissue level implants with a partially smooth collar between patients with thin (≤2 mm) and thick (>2 mm) vertical mucosal phenotypes.

METHODS

Thirty patients needing a single dental implant were recruited and allocated to thin (n = 14) or thick (n = 16) phenotype groups. Post-restoration, clinical (probing depth, recession, width of keratinized mucosa, bleeding on probing, suppuration, implant mobility, plaque index, and gingival index) and radiographic bone level measurements were recorded at different timepoints for 1 year.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (13 per group) completed the 1-year examination. No implants were lost (100% survival rate). There were no significant differences (P >0.05) between thin and thick vertical mucosal phenotypes for any clinical parameter or for the radiographic MBL.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue level implants at 1 year of function placed in thin vertical mucosa achieved similar clinical parameters and radiographic MBLs as those in thick tissue. The formation of the peri-implant supracrestal tissue height plays a key role in MBL than mucosal thickness in tissue level implant.

Factors Affecting Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants Placed by Post-Graduate Students: A 1-Year Prospective Cohort Study

Statement of the problem: Most of the clinical documentation of implant success and survival published in the literature have been issued by either experienced teams from university settings involving strict patient selection criteria or from seasoned private practitioners. By contrast, studies focusing on implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students are scarce. Purpose: To record failure rates and identify the contributing factors to implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up. Material and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on study participants scheduled for implant therapy at the International University of Catalonia. An experienced mentor determined the treatment plan in accordance with the need of each participant who signed an informed consent. All surgeries and prosthetic rehabilitation were performed by the post-graduate students. Implant failure rate, contributors to implant failure, and MBL were investigated among 24 variables related to patient health, local site, and implant and prosthetic characteristics. The risk of implant failure was analyzed with a simple binary logistic regression model with generalized equation equations (GEE) models, obtaining unadjusted odds ratios (OR). The relationship between MBL and the other independent variables was studied by simple linear regression estimated with GEE models and the Wald chi² test. Results: One hundred and thirty dental implants have been placed and rehabilitated by post-graduate students. Five implants failed before loading and none after restoration delivery; survival and success rates were 96.15% and 94.62%, respectively. None of the investigated variables significantly affected the implant survival rate. At the one-year follow-up, the mean (SD) MBL was 0.53 (0.39) mm. The following independent variables significantly affected the MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement. The width of keratinized tissue (KT) and probing depth (PD) above 3 mm were found to be good indicators of MBL, with each additional mm of probing depth resulting in 0.11 mm more MBL. Conclusion: The survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up were high. No contributing factor was identified regarding implant failure. However, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and width of KT. Clinical Implications: Survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students were high at the one-year follow-up, similar to experienced practitioners. No contributing factors were identified regarding implant failure; however, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and KM.

Radiological implications of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in posterior areas. A cone-beam computed tomography study

Background

Subcrestal implant placement has been suggested as a method that could contribute to maintain the periimplant soft and hard tissues in comparison with crestal placement. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between implant placement at different depths in the alveolar bone and (a) the thickness of the buccal bone plate (BBP); and (b) crestal cortical bone thickness, based on the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed, analyzing CBCT scans from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. Individuals with single missing teeth in posterior sectors were included. Two trained dentists used a software application to plan implant placement at four different depths from the bone crest (from 0-2 mm subcrestal). The thickness of the BBP was measured at each established depth, tracing a line from the implant platform to the outermost part of the facial alveolar bone, and the ratio between the implant platform and cortical bone thickness was calculated.

Results

The study sample consisted of 64 patients. In the case of implants placed in a crestal position, the distance from the platform to the BBP was 1.99±1.10 mm. This distance increased significantly (p<0.001) with the planned implant placement depth, reaching an average of 2.90±1.22 mm when placement was 2 mm subcrestal. Subcrestal implant placement at this depth implied surpassing the cortical bone in 91% of the cases.

Conclusions

Radiological planning of implant placement in a subcrestal position results in a greater distance from the implant platform to the BBP. In general terms, planning implant placement at a depth of 2 mm subcrestal surpassed the cortical bone in 91% of the cases.

Key words:Subcrestal implant, cortical bone thickness, buccal bone plate, cone-beam computed tomography.

Influence of implant mucosal thickness on early bone loss: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Purpose

Marginal bone loss (MBL) is an important clinical issue in implant therapy. One feature that has been cited as a contributing factor to this bone loss is peri-implant mucosal thickness. Therefore, in this report, we conducted a systematic review of the literature comparing bone remodeling around implants placed in areas with thick (≥2-mm) vs. thin (<2-mm) mucosa.

Methods

A PICO question was defined. Manual and electronic searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that documented soft tissue thickness with direct intraoperative measurements and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed for both the overall and subgroup analyses.

Results

Thirteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials was conducted. Significantly less bone loss was found around implants with thick mucosa than around those with thin mucosa (difference, −0.53 mm; P<0.0001). Subgroups were analyzed regarding the apico-coronal positioning, the use of platform-matched vs. platform-switched (PS) connections, and the use of cement-retained vs. screw-retained prostheses. In these analyses, thick mucosa was found to be associated with significantly less MBL than thin mucosa (P<0.0001). Among non-matching (PS) connections and screw-retained prostheses, bone levels were not affected by mucosal thickness.

Conclusions

Soft tissue thickness was found to be correlated with MBL except in cases of PS connections used on implants with thin tissues and screw-retained prostheses. Mucosal thickness did not affect implant survival or the occurrence of biological or aesthetic complications.

Trial Registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42018084598

A randomized controlled trial to compare aesthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization

INTRODUCTION

There are mixed results regarding the aesthetic advantage of immediate provisionalization of dental implants. Therefore, this study aimed to compare facial mucosal level of single immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization.

METHODS

Single implants were immediately placed to replace a hopeless maxillary anterior or premolar tooth in 40 subjects. Each implant was randomly assigned to receive a non-occluding temporary crown or a healing abutment after implant placement. At 4 months, these implants were permanently restored and followed up for 12 months. Clinical and radiographic parameters were measured and compared.

RESULTS

The implant survival rate at 12 months in the test and control group was 90% and 100%, respectively. Mid-facial mucosal marginal level and papilla height changes were minimal within groups, and no significant differences were found between the two groups. The amount of marginal bone remodelling was modest, with no significant difference between the two groups. Radiographic bone changes were not statistically different between the groups, except for the vertical crestal bone resorption.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement with or without provisionalization can achieve stable vertical soft tissue level for 12 months as compared to pre-extraction level. However, immediate provisionalization was not able to improve the aesthetic outcome further.

Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies.

Does Apico-Coronal Implant Position Influence Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss? A 36-Month Follow-Up Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Preserving peri-implant bone and reducing exposure of the rough implant surface might influence long-term outcomes of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant clinical and radiologic parameters after crestal and subcrestal dental implant placement at 36 months' follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a randomized clinical trial involving partially edentulous patients in need of an implant-supported, partial fixed dental prosthesis or a single crown. Patients were randomized according to the implant insertion depth: implants placed approximately 2 mm below the bone crest (test group) or implants placed at bone crest level (control group). They were evaluated 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was the primary outcome, and the following secondary outcomes were registered: coronal bone changes, plaque index, probing depth, modified bleeding index, retraction and width of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implant health condition. Implant survival and success rates after 36 months' follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

The study comprised 128 patients (83 men and 45 women; mean age, 54.4 ± 12.2 years) and a total of 265 implants (133 in control group and 132 in test group). No statistically significant differences in the peri-implant clinical parameters were found. After 3 years' follow-up, 53.4% of the crestal implants and 25.8% of the subcrestal implants presented marginal bone loss, with a mean exposed rough surface of -0.2 ± 0.3 mm and -0.09 ± 0.1 mm, respectively (P = .001). The overall success rate was 99.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Crestal and subcrestal implants showed similar clinical outcomes 3 years after prosthetic loading. Significant differences were observed in the radiologic parameters, showing less peri-implant marginal bone loss with subcrestal implants.

Impact of different placement depths on the crestal bone level of immediate versus delayed placed platform-switched implants

PURPOSE

The preservation of peri-implant bone is one requirement for long-term success of dental implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of subcrestal placement on the crestal bone level of immediate versus delayed placed implants after loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, data of 159 patients who received 330 implants was analyzed. Implants were placed subcrestally, crestally or supracrestally into fresh sockets or healed sites. Vertical bone level height was assessed radiographically and implants were followed up annually. The influence of patient and implant related risk factors for peri-implant bone loss was evaluated using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Depth of implant placement was significantly correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.001, 95% CI). Least effective loss of crestal bone was determined when implants were placed between 1 mm and 1.99 mm subcrestally. Smoking significantly enhanced the risk of peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.04, 95% CI). Immediate implant placement was not positively correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.51, 95% CI).

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of this study, implant placement 1.08 mm subcrestally may be recommendable in order to avoid supracrestal expositions of platform-switched titanium implants over time.