Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제48권3호
  • /
  • Pages.159-166
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Sargolzaie, Naser (Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Zarch, Hosein Hoseini (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Arab, Hamidreza (Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Koohestani, Tahereh (School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ramandi, Mahdiye Fasihi (Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences)
  • 투고 : 2022.03.14
  • 심사 : 2022.05.09
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Borie E, Orsi IA, de Araujo CP. The influence of the connection, length and diameter of an implant on bone biomechanics. Acta Odontol Scand 2015;73:321-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2014.961957
  2. von Wilmowsky C, Moest T, Nkenke E, Stelzle F, Schlegel KA. Implants in bone: part II. Research on implant osseointegration: material testing, mechanical testing, imaging and histoanalytical methods. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;18:355-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-013-0397-2
  3. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:443-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12157
  4. Pellicer-Chover H, Diaz-Sanchez M, Soto-Penaloza D, Penarrocha-Diago MA, Canullo L, Penarrocha-Oltra D. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement upon changes in marginal periimplant bone level. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;24:e673-83. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23006
  5. Kowalski J, Lapinska B, Nissan J, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Factors influencing marginal bone loss around dental implants: a narrative review. Coatings 2021;11:865. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070865
  6. Kutan E, Bolukbasi N, Yildirim-Ondur E, Ozdemir T. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of marginal bone changes around platform-switching implants placed in crestal or subcrestal positions: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17 Suppl 2:e364-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12248
  7. Palacios-Garzon N, Velasco-Ortega E, Lopez-Lopez J. Bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal and crestal level: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:154. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12010154
  8. Puisys A, Linkevicius T. The influence of mucosal tissue thickening on crestal bone stability around bone-level implants. A prospective controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:123-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12301
  9. Romanos GE. Wound healing in immediately loaded implants. Periodontol 2000 2015;68:153-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12058
  10. Hammerle CH, Bragger U, Burgin W, Lang NP. The effect of subcrestal placement of the polished surface of ITI implants on marginal soft and hard tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:111-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070204.x
  11. Gatti C, Gatti F, Silvestri M, Mintrone F, Rossi R, Tridondani G, et al. A prospective multicenter study on radiographic crestal bone changes around dental implants placed at crestal or subcrestal level: one-year findings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:913-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6509
  12. 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.
  13. Romanos GE, Aydin E, Gaertner K, Nentwig GH. Long-term results after subcrestal or crestal placement of delayed loaded implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:133-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12084
  14. Al Amri MD, Al-Johany SS, Al Baker AM, Al Rifaiy MQ, Abduljabbar TS, Al-Kheraif AA. Soft tissue changes and crestal bone loss around platform-switched implants placed at crestal and subcrestal levels: 36-month results from a prospective split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1342-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12990
  15. de Siqueira RAC, Fontao FNGK, Sartori IAM, Santos PGF, Bernardes SR, Tiossi R. Effect of different implant placement depths on crestal bone levels and soft tissue behavior: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1227-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12946
  16. Ercoli C, Jammal G, Buyers M, Tsigarida AA, Chochlidakis KM, Feng C, et al. Influence of apico-coronal implant placement on post-surgical crestal bone loss in humans. J Periodontol 2017;88: 762-70. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.160802
  17. Valles C, Rodriguez-Ciurana X, Clementini M, Baglivo M, Paniagua B, Nart J. Influence of subcrestal implant placement compared with equicrestal position on the peri-implant hard and soft tissues around platform-switched implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:555-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2301-1
  18. Cruz RS, Lemos CAA, de Luna Gomes JM, Fernandes e Oliveira HF, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR. Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127:408-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.003
  19. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Shibli JA, Novaes AB, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Equicrestal and subcrestal dental implants: a histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of nine retrieved human implants. J Periodontol 2011;82:708-15. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100450
  20. Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfield J, Buser D, et al. The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. J Periodontol 2008;79:260-70. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070132
  21. 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
  22. Pontes AE, Ribeiro FS, da Silva VC, Margonar R, Piattelli A, Cirelli JA, et al. Clinical and radiographic changes around dental implants inserted in different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different restoration protocols, in the dog model. J Periodontol 2008;79:486-94. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070145
  23. Fetner M, Fetner A, Koutouzis T, Clozza E, Tovar N, Sarendranath A, et al. The effects of subcrestal implant placement on crestal bone levels and bone-to-abutment contact: a microcomputed tomographic and histologic study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1068-75. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4043
  24. Pedro RE, De Carli JP, Linden MS, Lima IF, Paranhos LR, Costa MD, et al. Influence of age on factors associated with periimplant bone loss after prosthetic rehabilitation over osseointegrated implants. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18:3-10. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1979
  25. Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. A retrospective study of 1925 consecutively placed immediate implants from 1988 to 2004. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:71-80.
  26. Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:204-15. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.4.204
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a42950
  28. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, Panda SK, Oommen VM, Prasad A. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: a retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7:351-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_380_17