Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.3.159

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)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons / v.48, no.3, 2022 , pp. 159-166 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Marginal bone loss; Implant; Crestal; Subcrestal;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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   DOI
2 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   DOI
3 Romanos GE. Wound healing in immediately loaded implants. Periodontol 2000 2015;68:153-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12058   DOI
4 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   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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.
9 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   DOI
10 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   DOI
11 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.
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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   DOI
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
18 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   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 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   DOI
22 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   DOI
23 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   DOI
24 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   DOI
25 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   DOI
26 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   DOI
27 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   DOI
28 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   DOI