Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Marginal bone level changes in association with different vertical implant positions: a 3-year retrospective study

  • Kim, Yeon-Tae (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lim, Gyu-Hyung (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Hong (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jeong, Seong-Nyum (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2017.06.15
  • Accepted : 2017.07.21
  • Published : 2017.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the relationship between the vertical position of the implant-abutment interface and marginal bone loss over 3 years using radiological analysis. Methods: In total, 286 implant surfaces of 143 implants from 61 patients were analyzed. Panoramic radiographic images were taken immediately after implant installation and at 6, 12, and 36 months after loading. The implants were classified into 3 groups based on the vertical position of the implant-abutment interface: group A (above bone level), group B (at bone level), and group C (below bone level). The radiographs were analyzed by a single examiner. Results: Changes in marginal bone levels of $0.99{\pm}1.45$, $1.13{\pm}0.91$, and $1.76{\pm}0.78mm$ were observed at 36 months after loading in groups A, B, and C, respectively, and bone loss was significantly greater in group C than in groups A and B. Conclusions: The vertical position of the implant-abutment interface may affect marginal bone level change. Marginal bone loss was significantly greater in cases where the implantabutment interface was positioned below the marginal bone. Further long-term study is required to validate our results.

Keywords

References

  1. Higuchi KW, Folmer T, Kultje C. Implant survival rates in partially edentulous patients: a 3-year prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:264-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(95)90222-8
  2. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:119-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
  3. Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29 Suppl:308-24. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g5.2
  4. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  5. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
  6. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  7. Cox JF, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical efficacy of osseointegrated dental implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:91-100.
  8. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322
  9. Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:158-61. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040307.x
  10. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255-61.
  11. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Soft tissue response to plaque formation at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:73-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090202.x
  12. Lindhe J, Hamp SE, Loe H. Plaque induced periodontal disease in beagle dogs. A 4-year clinical, roentgenographical and histometrical study. J Periodontal Res 1975;10:243-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.1975.tb00031.x
  13. Lindhe J, Ericsson I. Effect of ligature placement and dental plaque on periodontal tissue breakdown in the dog. J Periodontol 1978;49:343-50. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1978.49.7.343
  14. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82:232-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200316
  15. Schwarz F, Hegewald A, Becker J. Impact of implant-abutment connection and positioning of the machined collar/microgap on crestal bone level changes: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:417-25.
  16. Yi JM, Lee JK, Um HS, Chang BS, Lee MK. Marginal bony changes in relation to different vertical positions of dental implants. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40:244-8. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2010.40.5.244
  17. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372
  18. Veis A, Parissis N, Tsirlis A, Papadeli C, Marinis G, Zogakis A. Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:609-17.
  19. van Eekeren P, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. Crestal bone changes in macrogeometrically similar implants with the implant-abutment connection at the crestal bone level or 2.5 mm above: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1479-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12581
  20. Koo KT, Lee EJ, Kim JY, Seol YJ, Han JS, Kim TI, et al. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol 2012;83:1104-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110456
  21. Weng D, Nagata MJ, Bosco AF, de Melo LG. Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss around submerged implants: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:941-6.
  22. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.
  23. Schopper C, Moser D, Goriwoda W, Ziya-Ghazvini F, Spassova E, Lagogiannis G, et al. The effect of three different calcium phosphate implant coatings on bone deposition and coating resorption: a long-term histological study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:357-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01080.x
  24. Xuereb M, Camilleri J, Attard NJ. Systematic review of current dental implant coating materials and novel coating techniques. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:51-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4124
  25. Oshida Y, Tuna EB, Aktoren O, Gencay K. Dental implant systems. Int J Mol Sci 2010;11:1580-678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11041580

Cited by

  1. Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.12, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12010154
  2. Effect of Implant-Abutment Connection Type on Bone Around Dental Implants in Long-Term Observation : Internal Cone Versus Internal Hex vol.28, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000905
  3. Factors Influencing Primary and Secondary Implant Stability-A Retrospective Cohort Study with 582 Implants in 272 Patients vol.10, pp.22, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228084
  4. Marginal bone loss around oral implants supporting fixed versus removable prostheses: a systematic review vol.6, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00217-7
  5. Aesthetic Outcomes and Peri-Implant Health of Angled Screw Retained Implant Restorations Compared with Cement Retained Crowns: Medium Term Follow-Up vol.12, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb12020035