Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Long-term effect of implant-abutment connection type on marginal bone loss and survival of dental implants

  • Young-Min Kim (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jong-Bin Lee (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Heung-Sik Um (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Beom-Seok Chang (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jae-Kwan Lee (Department of Periodontology and Research Institute of Oral Sciences, Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2022.02.07
  • Accepted : 2022.05.17
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the long-term survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss between different types of dental implant-abutment connections. Methods: Implants with external or internal abutment connections, which were fitted at Gangneung-Wonju National University Dental Hospital from November 2011 to December 2015 and followed up for >5 years, were retrospectively investigated. Cumulative survival rates were evaluated for >5 years, and peri-implant marginal bone loss was evaluated at 1- and 5-year follow-up examinations after functional loading. Results: The 8-year cumulative survival rates were 93.3% and 90.7% in the external and internal connection types, respectively (P=0.353). The mean values of marginal bone loss were 1.23 mm (external) and 0.72 mm (internal) (P<0.001) after 1 year of loading, and 1.20 mm and 1.00 mm for external and internal abutment connections, respectively (P=0.137) after 5 years. Implant length (longer, P=0.018), smoking status (heavy, P=0.001), and prosthetic type (bridge, P=0.004) were associated with significantly greater marginal bone loss, and the use of screw-cement-retained prosthesis was significantly associated (P=0.027) with less marginal bone loss. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the cumulative survival rate between implants with external and internal abutment connections. After 1 year of loading, marginal bone loss was greater around the implants with an external abutment connection. However, no significant difference between the external and internal connection groups was found after 5 years. Both types of abutment connections are viable treatment options for the reconstruction of partially edentulous ridges.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  2. Papaspyridakos P, Barizan Bordin T, Kim YJ, DeFuria C, Pagni SE, Chochlidakis K, et al. Implant survival rates and biologic complications with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with up to 12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:881-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13340
  3. Francetti L, Cavalli N, Taschieri S, Corbella S. Ten years follow-up retrospective study on implant survival rates and prevalence of peri-implantitis in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:252-60.
  4. 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.
  5. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010105.x
  6. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059
  7. Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:792-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12014
  8. Nimbalkar S, Dhatrak P, Gherde C, Joshi S. A review article on factors affecting bone loss in dental implants. Mater Today Proc. 2021;43:970-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.428
  9. Caricasulo R, Malchiodi L, Ghensi P, Fantozzi G, Cucchi A. The influence of implant-abutment connection to peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:653-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12620
  10. 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
  11. Kim JC, Lee J, Kim S, Koo KT, Kim HY, Yeo IL. Influence of implant-abutment connection structure on peri-implant bone level in a second molar: a 1-year randomized controlled trial. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:147-54. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.3.147
  12. Canullo L, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Soldini C, Mazzocco F, Penarrocha M, Covani U. Microbiological assessment of the implant-abutment interface in different connections: cross-sectional study after 5 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:426-34.
  13. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:75-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
  14. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Periodontal treatment of medically compromised patients. In: Newman and Carranza's clinical periodontology, 13th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. p.447-8 
  15. Kaldahl WB, Johnson GK, Patil KD, Kalkwarf KL. Levels of cigarette consumption and response to periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 1996;67:675-81. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1996.67.7.675
  16. Park WK, Lee JK, Chang BS, Um HS. A retrospective study on patients' compliance with supportive periodontal therapy. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2009;39:59-70. https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2009.39.1.59
  17. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Implant-related complications and failures. In: Newman and Carranza's clinical periodontology, 13th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. p.846-7. 
  18. Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Bragger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:839-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x
  19. Penarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchis JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer J. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:861-7.
  20. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komarek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of late oral implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:670-6.
  21. Moy PK, Medina D, Shetty V, Aghaloo TL. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:569-77.
  22. Schoenbaum TR, Moy PK, Aghaloo T, Elashoff D. Risk factors for dental implant failure in private practice: a multicenter survival analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36:388-94. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8983
  23. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hurzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, et al. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:417-23.
  24. Manz MC. Factors associated with radiographic vertical bone loss around implants placed in a clinical study. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:137-51. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.137
  25. Souto-Maior JR, Pellizzer EP, de Luna Gomes JM, Dds CA, Dds JF, Vasconcelos BC, et al. Influence of diabetes on the survival rate and marginal bone loss of dental implants: an overview of systematic reviews. J Oral Implantol 2019;45:334-40. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00087
  26. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Goncalves Y, Lopes A. Long-term outcome of implant rehabilitations in patients with systemic disorders and smoking habits: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:649-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12346
  27. Chung DM, Oh TJ, Lee J, Misch CE, Wang HL. Factors affecting late implant bone loss: a retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:117-26.
  28. Guven SS, Cabbar F, Guler N. Local and systemic factors associated with marginal bone loss around dental implants: a retrospective clinical study. Quintessence Int 2020;51:128-41.
  29. Nazeer J, Singh R, Suri P, Mouneshkumar CD, Bhardwaj S, Iqubal MA, et al. Evaluation of marginal bone loss around dental implants in cigarette smokers and nonsmokers. A comparative study. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:729-34. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1023_19
  30. DeLuca S, Zarb G. The effect of smoking on osseointegrated dental implants. Part II: Peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:560-6.
  31. Levin L, Hertzberg R, Har-Nes S, Schwartz-Arad D. Long-term marginal bone loss around single dental implants affected by current and past smoking habits. Implant Dent 2008;17:422-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31818c4a24
  32. Ravida A, Tattan M, Askar H, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL. Comparison of three different types of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a long-term retrospective study of clinical outcomes and costeffectiveness. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:295-305.
  33. Alhammadi SH, Burnside G, Milosevic A. Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:171.
  34. de Brandao ML, Vettore MV, Vidigal Junior GM. Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2013;40:287-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12041
  35. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:419-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
  36. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:943-6.
  37. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1388-92. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090115