• 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 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 the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.159-166
• /
• 2022

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.

• 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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.133-142
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. A large number of studies have suggested the practicability and predictability of immediate implant function, but few studies have reported marginal bone level changes during sequential loading periods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal bone remodeling of immediately loaded self-tapping implants both at each time point and during each loading period between two time points. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The patients included in this retrospective study were treated with immediately loaded NobelSpeedy Replace implants between August 2008 and July 2009. Differences in the marginal bone level (MBL) at each time point and the marginal bone level change (ΔMBL) between two time points were analyzed with Bonferroni correction (P < .05). RESULTS. Overall, 24 patients (mean age, 47.3 ± 12.8 years) with 42 immediately loaded implants and a median follow-up of 6.5 years (IQR, 67.8 months) were included. The cumulative survival rate after 10 - 12 years was 95.2%. Continuous but slow marginal bone loss was observed during long-term follow-up. MBL at both 7.5 years and 11 years was significantly lower than that at loading, 6 months, 2 years and 4 years (P < .05). No bone loss difference was found in any period before 4 years of follow up (P > .05). The loading period of 4 years to 7.5 years showed the largest ΔMBL compared to those of other time periods (P < .05). CONCLUSION. Slight bone loss occurred continuously, and more radical changes of marginal bone can be observed during the period of 4-7.5 years. Thus, long-term effective follow-up of immediately loaded implants is needed.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.240-247
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss to the bone crest functionally loaded for up to eighteen months and also with regard to other variables of interest. Material and Methods: 135 endosseous implants(GS II, Osstem, South Korea) were placed in 35 patients. The design of GS II implant is straight with the microthread. Radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after loading. Marginal bone level measurement was made from the reference point to the lowest observed point of contact of the marginal bone with the fixture. The reference point of the fixture was the border between the blasted surface and machined surface of the fixture. Results: Implants were on function for a mean 12.7 months(range, 3?18 months). For the 56 maxillary and 79 mandibular implants, mean marginal bone loss was 0.68 mm and 0.70 mm. Implants placed maxillary posterior area displayed more crestal bone loss than the other position. The difference between mesial and distal bone levels was statistically significant (p<0.05) with respective means of 0.51 mm and 0.62 mm. Also, The difference between bone graft group and no-bone graft group was statistically significant(p<0.05) with respective means of 0.38 mm and 0.66 mm. But no statistically significant influence of sex, type of surgery(one or two stage surgery), the implant length was observed(p>0.05). Conclusion: This study indicates the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.70-84
• /
• 1996

This paper reports marginal bone loss around osseointegrated implants after loading in partially edentulous patients in dental hospital, Yonsei University. Two types of implants($Br{\aa}nemark^{TM},\;IMZ^{TM}$) were used. Through the digital measurement on periapical radiograph around 37 implants in human subjects, marginal bone loss was observed for 24 months after delivery of prostheses. The results were as follows; 1. According to experimental periods marginal bone loss in total implants was 1.775 mm at 12 months, 1.921 mm at 24 months after delivery of prostheses(p<0.05). 2. Marginal bone loss in the $Br{\aa}nemark$ implants was 1.831 mm at 12 months, 1.833 mm at 24 months after delivery of prostheses(p<0.05). 3. Marginal bone loss in the IMZ implants was 1.578 mm at 12 months, 2.907 mm at 23 months after delivery of prostheses(p<0.05). 4. During the first year after loading, the IMZ implants showed less marginal bone loss than the $Br{\aa}nemark$ implants but, during the next the $Br{\aa}nemark$ implants showed less than the IMZ implants(p>0.05). These results indicate that marginal bone loss around osseointegrated implants occurs within the first 12 months after delivery of prostheses and stabilizes thereafter, so it is necessary to be careful of using dental implants for the first year after delivery of prostheses.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.383-393
• /
• 2003

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the amount of marginal bone loss between upper anterior area and upper posterior area with 71 upper single-tooth restorations on 2 stage machined $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ implants since Jan 1995. The second aim was to compare the bone defect group which had dehiscence and fenetration and the others in the upper anterior region. The results were as follows. 1. The most frequent reason of missing tooth in the upper anterior region was trauma by 61%. While upper posterior region showed various reasons such as congenital missing, advanced periodontitis, trauma. 2. Peri-implantitis with fistula occurred 1 of 41 implants in the upper anterior group in 1 year after loading and 2 of 32 implants in the upper posterior group failed before loading. The 1 year success rate of upper anterior group was 97.56 %, and 93.75 % for upper posterior group. 3. The mean marginal bone loss in the upper anterior group was 0.44${\pm}$0.25 mm, while 0.57${\pm}$0.32 mm in the upper posterior group. There was statistically significant difference in the amount of mean marginal bone loss (P${\pm}$0.10 mm at one year, and 0.48${\pm}$0.26 mm for the control group. No statistically significant difference of mean marginal bone loss was showen between bone defect group and the others at implantation. According to the results, the upper anterior region showed less marginal bone loss than the upper posterior region. In case of missing single upper tooth, careful consideration on recipient residual ridge to determine proper implant diameter and length, sufficient healing time, proper loading would lead to implant success. Single tooth implants in the maxilla seemed to be an alternative to fixed partial dentures without damage to adjacent teeth.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.806-815
• /
• 1998

Regular radiographic examination has been considered as an essential diagnostic method for the osseointegrated dental implantation. This study investigated the marginal bone loss through the measurement on the periapical radiograph around 46 endosseous dental implants. Marginal bone loss have been observed for 5 years after delivery of prostheses. The results were as follows : 1. According to the experimental periods, average marginal bone loss in total implant was 1.821mm in the first year, 1.833mm in the second, 1.892mm at third, 1.910mm at forth and 1.957mm at fifth after delivery of prostheses(P<0.05). 2. The average bone loss was 1.832mm in the maxillae and 1.819mm in the mandible in three years but there was no significant difference between the upper and lower jaw(P>0.05). 3. The average bone loss was 1.824mm in males and 1.818mm in females in five years but there was no significant difference according to the sex(P>0.05). These results indicate that the most of the alveolar bone loss occur within the first year after delivery of dental prostheses resulting in the exposure of polished neck positions, and the bone level stabilizes at first thread portion of the implant fixtures.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.47 no.4
• /
• pp.231-239
• /
• 2017

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.