• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.535-542
• /
• 2007

Background : Repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment caused bone loss around implant fixtures due to the new formation of biologic width of the mucosal-implant barrier. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate whether the repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment cause bone loss clinically and the effect of cleansing methods on a bone loss during the early healing period. Methods : A total 50 implants were installed in 20 patients and repeated dis/re-connection of abutment was performed at the time of surgery and once per week for 12 weeks. 0.9% normal saline solution as group1 and 0.1% chlorhexidine solution as group 2 was used to clean abutments. All patients had radiographs taken at the placement of implant and 4, 8, and 12 weeks postoperatively. The data for bone loss around implant were analyzed. Results: The marginal bone loss at 12 weeks were $1.28{\pm}0.51mm$, $1,32{\pm}0,57mm$ in the mesial and distal sides in group1, $1.94{\pm}0.75mm$, $1.81{\pm}0.84mm$ in group 2, respectively. In view of marginal bone loss, there was not a significant statistical difference between groups. Conclusions : Repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment may not cause marginal bone loss around implant fixture although limited samples and short-term observation period. In spite of more bone loss in group 2, there was no statistical significant difference between groups. In context of those results, the clinical significance of the repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment and the cleansing method of abutments is debatable when it comes to marginal bone loss during early healing period.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.52 no.6
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Systemic health has a profound effect on dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate peri-implant bone loss and health screening data to discover factors that may influence peri-implant diseases. Methods: This study analyzed the panoramic X-rays of patients undergoing health screenings at the Health Promotion Center at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital in 2018, to investigate the relationship between laboratory test results and dental data. The patients' physical data, such as height, weight, blood pressure, hematological and urine analysis data, smoking habits, number of remaining teeth, alveolar bone level, number of implants, and degree of bone loss around the implant, were analyzed for correlations. Their associations with glycated hemoglobin, glucose, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, and severity of periodontitis were evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: In total, 2,264 patients opted in for dental health examinations, of whom 752 (33.2%) had undergone dental implant treatment. These 752 patients had a total of 2,658 implants, and 129 (17.1%) had 1 or more implants with peri-implant bone loss of 2 mm or more. The number of these implants was 204 (7%). Body mass index and smoking were not correlated with peri-implant bone loss. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis revealed that the severity of periodontal bone loss (moderate bone loss: odds ratio [OR], 3.154; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.175-8.475 and severe bone loss: OR, 7.751; 95% CI, 3.003-20) and BUN (OR, 1.082; 95% CI, 1.027-1.141) showed statistically significant predictive value. The severity of periodontitis showed greater predictive value than the biochemical parameters of blood glucose, renal function, and liver function. Conclusions: The results of this study showed that periodontal bone loss was a predictor of peri-implant bone loss, suggesting that periodontal disease should be controlled before dental treatment. Diligent maintenance care is recommended for patients with moderate to severe periodontal bone loss.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.455-469
• /
• 1994

Regular radiographic examination has been considered an essential diagnositic method for osseointegrated dental implantation. This study investigated marginal bone loss through the measurement on periapical radiographs and changes in bone density through digital subtraction image radiographic method around 88 endoseous root-form dental implants in 43 human subjects. Four types of endosseous dental implants were investigated : Standard series, Mini series and Hex-lock system of Steri-Oss Dental implant system, and $Br{\aa}nemark$-type implant from 3i dental implant system, in a 3 month interval for a total period of 12 months. The results were as follows : 1. Rapid bone loss occurred in the first 3 months in all 4 groups, and the bone level stabilized at the first thread of the implant fixtures. Amount of bone loss for 12 months showed correlation with the length of the polished neck portion. 2. Most of the implant systems showed resorption of alveolar bone up to the polished neck portion although a long polished neck could delay the resolution. 3. Alveolar bone loss apical to the polished neck portion stabilized at the first thread of the fixtures with no correlation to either the time of exposure of the polished neck or types of implant systems. 4. No changes in bone density around the implant threads were observed throughout the experimental period. Bone density decreased at the marginal bone, and increased at the newly-formed alveolar crest. These results indicate that most of the alveolar bone loss occur within the first 12 months after installation of endosseous root-form dental implants resulting in the exposure of polished neck portions, and the bone level stabilizes thereafter at the first thread portions of the implant fixtures. The experimental period of 12 months seems insufficient for observing changes in bone density, and a long-term observation should be needed.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.440-448
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss of the alveolar crest on implants with or without guided bone regeneration and variables that have influenced. Methods: The clinical evaluation were performed for survival rate and marginal bone loss of 161 endosseous implants installed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) in 83 patients from September 2009 to October 2010 in relation to sex and age of patients, position of implant, implant system, length and diameter of implant. Study group (n=42) implant with GBR procedure, control group (n=41) implant without GBR technique. Simultaneous GBR approach using resorbable membranes combined with autogenous bone graft or freeze-dried bone allograft or combination. Radiographic examinations were conducted at healing abutment connection and latest visit. Marginal bone level was measured. Results: Mean marginal bone loss was 0.73 mm in study group, 0.63 mm in control group. Implants in maxillary anterior area (1.21 mm) were statistically significant in study group (P<0.05), maxillary posterior area (0.81 mm) in control group (P<0.05). Mean marginal bone loss 1.47 mm for implants with diameter 3.4 mm, 0.83 mm for implants of control group with diameter 4.0 mm (P<0.05). Some graft materials showed an increased marginal bone loss but no statistically significant influence of sex, implant type or length. Conclusion: According to these findings, this study demonstrated the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods. We conclude that implants with GBR had similar survival rate and crestal bone level compared with implants in native bone.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.245-252
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. RESULTS. Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. CONCLUSION. In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.231-236
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio on the change in marginal bone level around the implant and to determine the site-related factors influencing the relationship between the C/I ratio and periimplant marginal bone loss. Methods: A total of 259 implants from 175 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of five years. Implants were divided into two groups according to their C/I ratios: ${\leq}$ 1, and >1. Site-related factors having an influence on the relationship between C/I ratio and periimplant marginal bone loss were analyzed according to the implant location, implant diameter, implant manufacturer, prosthesis type, and guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure. Results: It was found that 1) implants with a C/I ratio below 1 exhibited greater periimplant marginal bone loss than implants with a C/I ratio more than 1, 2) site-related factors had an effect on periimplant marginal bone loss, except for the implant system used, 3) the C/I ratio was the factor having more dominant influence on periimplant marginal bone loss, compared with implant diameter, prosthesis type, implant location, and GBR procedure, 4) implants with a C/I ratio below 1 showed greater periimplant marginal bone loss than implants with a C/I ratio greater than 1 in the maxilla, but not in the mandible, 5) and periimplant marginal bone loss was more affected by the implant system than the C/I ratio. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, implants with a higher C/I ratio exhibited less marginal bone loss than implants with a lower C/I ratio in the posterior regions. The C/I ratio was a more dominant factor affecting periimplant marginal bone loss in the maxilla than the mandible. Meanwhile, the implant system was a more dominant factor influencing periimplant marginal bone loss than the C/I ratio.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.82-93
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated the relationship between the timing of peri-implantitis diagnosis and marginal bone level after a 5-year follow-up of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Methods: Thirty-three patients (69 implants) were given peri-implantitis diagnosis in 2008-2009 in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Among them, 31 implants from 16 patients were included in this study. They were treated non-surgically in this hospital, and came for regular maintenance visits for at least 5 years after peri-implantitis treatment. Radiographic marginal bone levels at each interval were measured and statistical analysis was performed. Results: Timing of peri-implantitis was one of the significant factors affecting initial bone loss and total bone loss not additional bone after peri-implantitis diagnosis. Patients with cardiovascular disease and diabetic mellitus were positively influenced on both initial bone loss and total bone loss. Patients who needed periodontal treatment after implant placement showed a negative effect on bone loss compared to those who needed periodontal treatment before implant placement during entire periods. Implant location also significantly influenced on amounts of bone loss. Mandibular implants showed less bone loss than maxillary implants. Among surgical factors, combined use of autogenous and xenogenic bone graft materials showed a negative effect on bone loss compared to autogenous bone graft materials. Use of membrane negatively affected on initial bone loss but positively on additional bone loss and total bone loss. Thread exposure showed positive effects on initial bone loss and total bone loss. Conclusions: Early peri-implantitis diagnosis led to early non-surgical intervention for peri-implantitis treatment, which resulted in the maintenance of the bone level as well as preservation of the implant.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.165-180
• /
• 1997

The purpose of this study was to observe bone apposition and marginal bone loss and to check the possibility of success on titanium implant, HA coated implant and the implant with natural coral that were place immediately after teeth extraction in dogs. Experimental subjects were divided into 4 groups ; the 1st group is the titanium implant, second the HA coated implant, third the implant with natural coral, and the last the control group that was prepared in the extraction sockets. After 12 weeks, the dogs were sacrificed for visual observation and microscopic examination approaching histologic and histomorphometric analysis. The results were as follows : 1. Neither the infection nor the exposure of implant was found at the sites of all implant. 2. In a histomorphometric analysis, mean percentage of direct bone contact with the titanium implant was 80.7% and the HA coated implant showed 81.5% apposition, but the implant with natural coral showed 64.9% apposition(P<0.05). 3. In a microscopic examination, mature lamellated bone was found around the immediate implants and control group, while unabsorbed natural coral around the immediate implants with natural coral was found. 4. All immediate implant groups showed the loss of marginal bone in order from implant with natural coral, titanium implant, and HA coated implant. 5. Implant with natural coral that was placed by the type I interface of the Barzilay's classification immediately after teeth extraction showed low percentage of direct bone contact area, low success rate and a lot of marginal bone loss. Above results suggested that the immediate implants are osseointegrated successfully, although slightly marginal bone was loss.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.760-768
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem. Conventional denture treatment for totally edentulous patients is associated with a variety of functional and psychosocial problems. The placement of implants in the anterior region of the maxilla and mandible and the fabrication of an implant-retained overdenture might solve these problems. Purpose. This study compared the marginal bone loss around the implant and evaluated the implant survival rate and complications in patients treated with overdentures retained by implants for 2 years. Material and methods. Patients who had received implant-retained overdentures using a Dolder bar at Samsung Medical Center from January 1999 to June 2005 and had participated in the annual recall programs for two years were selected for this study. A total of 18 patients and 56 $Br{\aa}ne-mark\;system^{(R)}$ implants were used, and their data were reviewed. Evaluations of the survival rate, bone quality, marginal bone loss, and complications were performed. The data on the Dolder bar length and clip length were measured. The change in marginal bone loss and the correlation between the marginal bone loss and bar length, clip length, or bone quality were investigated. Results. Implants placed in this study showed a 100% survival rate. The average annual bone loss was 1.12mm in the first year and 0.27mm in the second year in the maxilla, and 0.58mm in the first year and 0.22mm in the second year in the mandible. The marginal bone loss in the maxilla showed no significant association with those in the mandible. (P>.05). There was no significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between the first and second year. (P>.05) There was no statistically significant relationship (P>.05) between the marginal bone loss and bone quality, clip length, or Dolder bar length. The Dolder bar length showed a high correlation with the clip length. (P<.05) Various complications were noted. Conclusion. These results confirmed the favorable outcome for patients treated with implant-retained overdentures.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.535-541
• /
• 2004

The aims of the present study are firstly to investigate the amount of bone loss around non-submerged implants placed in the posterior region and secondly to investigate the relationship between inter-implant and implant-tooth distance and peri-implant bone loss. Thirty-one subjects with 60 implants were selected consecutively from the implant patient pool at the department of Chonbuk National University Hospital. To be included in the study subject, the implant should have been functioned more than 6 months after loading. Inter-implant and implant-tooth distance, distance between implant shoulder and the first bone contact with the implant(DIB) were measured from the scanning image of the radiograph of each implant. The result showed that; 1. inter-implant distance has a statistically significant relationship with DIB in Pearson correlation analysis. 2. the DIB at the implant facing surface of the implant was greater than that of tooth facing surface of the implant. Within limitation of this study, it is suggested to place an implant not too closely to adjacent implants, and the presence of a tooth adjacent to an implant may keep the level of tooth-facing surface of the implant. Further studies with a prospective design are needed to elucidate the relationship between bone changes and various dimensions around implants.