Conclusion : Study of implants (6)|palmerah.implantgigi.com

5 CONCLUSION

This open cohort, retrospective study evaluated risk indicators associated with marginal bone loss (MBL) through the analysis of 4,591 dental implants, of various designs, placed in private practice and followed‐up for 5 to 10 years. Significant risk indicators for bone loss were found to include autoimmune disease, heavy smoking, bisphosphonate therapy, implant location, diameter and design, and the presence of a bone defect at the site of placement. This study, using an ordinal scale for assessment of soft‐tissue conditions, reported that the prevalence of mucositis at the implant level, at 6 to 7 years, was higher at 38.6% versus 14.2% using strict versus relaxed criteria, respectively. The prevalence of peri‐implantitis was found to be 4.7% and 3.6%, using strict versus relaxed criteria, respectively. The results of this study highlight factors to consider when trying to prevent bone loss and further acknowledge the wide range of reported cases of peri‐implantitis and the need for universal standards.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was performed with financial assistance from Institute Straumann, Basel, Switzerland for statistical analysis as relates to the work of Dr. Ofec. Additional financial support for consulting, with regards to the manuscript, was provided to Dr. Grandin. Dr. French reports no conflicts of interest related to this study.

1 Straumann Dental Implant System, Institute Straumann, Basel, Switzerland.
2 Straumann Dental Implant System.
3 Florida Probe, Gainesville, FL
4 IBM, Version 19.0, Armonk, NY
5 R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

REFERENCES

1Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(Suppl): 308‐ 324.
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
2Albrektsson T, Donos N. Implant survival and complications. The third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 63‐ 65.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
3Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Faggion CM, Duncan WJ. The frequency of peri‐implant diseases: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Periodontol. 2013; 84: 1586‐ 1598.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
4Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone‐level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(Suppl 4): 207‐ 215.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
5Klinge B, Meyle J. Peri‐implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 108‐ 110.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
6Lindhe J, Meyle J. Peri‐implant diseases: consensus report of the sixth European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35: 282‐ 285.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
7Mombelli A, Oosten MAC, Schürch E, Lang NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987; 2: 145‐ 151.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8French D, Cochran D, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants placed in 2060 patients in private practice with up to 10 year follow‐up: the relationship between crestal bone level and soft tissue condition. Int J oral Maxillofac Implant. 2016; 31: e168‐ e178.
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
9Heitz‐Mayfield LJA. Peri‐implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2008; 35: 292‐ 304.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
10Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13: 1‐ 19.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
11Albouy J‐P, Abrahamsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T. Spontaneous progression of peri‐implantitis at different types of implants. An experimental study in dogs. I: clinical and radiographic observations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 997‐ 1002.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
12Ho DSW, Yeung SC, Zee KY, Curtis B, Hell P, Tumuluri V. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive(TM) dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 297‐ 304.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
13Laurell L, Lundgren D. Marginal bone level changes at dental implants after 5 years in function: a meta‐analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011; 13: 19‐ 28.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
14Poli PP, Beretta M, Grossi GB, Maiorana C. Risk indicators related to peri‐implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016; 46: 266‐ 276.
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
15Rodrigo D, Martin C, Sanz M. Biological complications and peri‐implant clinical and radiographic changes at immediately placed dental implants. A prospective 5‐year cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 1224‐ 1231.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
16Stavropoulos A, Cochran D, Obrecht M, Pippenger BE, Dard M. Effect of osteotomy preparation on osseointegration of immediately loaded, tapered dental implants. Adv Dent Res. 2016; 28: 34‐ 41.
Crossref CAS PubMed Google Scholar
17Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter‐implant distance on the height of inter‐implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71: 546‐ 549.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
18Elian N, Bloom M, Dard M, Cho SC, Trushkowsky RD, Tarnow D. Radiological and micro‐computed tomography analysis of the bone at dental implants inserted 2, 3 and 4 mm apart in a minipig model with platform switching incorporated. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: e22‐ e29.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
19Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: a 1‐year pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 2272‐ 2277.
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
20Serino G, Turri A, Lang NP. Probing at implants with peri‐implantitis and its relation to clinical peri‐implant bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 91‐ 95.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
21French D, Larjava H, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10‐year follow‐up. part 1: multivariate survival analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1345‐ 1354.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
22Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Brägger 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‐ 851.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
23Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1975; 25: 229‐ 235.
CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
24De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S, Ruyffelaert C, Cosyn J, Sennerby L. Radiographic evaluation of modern oral implants with emphasis on crestal bone level and relevance to peri‐implant health. Periodontol 2000. 2013; 62: 256‐ 270.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
25Parrillo JE, Fauci AS. Mechanisms of glucocorticoid action on immune processes. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1979; 19: 179‐ 201.
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
26Waters RV, Gamradt SC, Asnis P, et al. Systemic corticosteroids inhibit bone healing in a rabbit ulnar osteotomy model. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000; 71: 316‐ 321.
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
27Pischon N, Pischon T, Kröger J, et al. Association among rheumatoid arthritis, oral hygiene, and periodontitis. J Periodontol. 2008; 79: 979‐ 986.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
28Reid JL, Hammond D, Driezen P. Socio‐economic status and smoking in Canada, 1999‒2006: has there been any progress on disparities in tobacco use. Can J Public Health. 2010; 101: 73‐ 78.
PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
29Madrid C, Sanz M. What impact do systemically administrated bisphosphonates have on oral implant therapy? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(Suppl 4): 87‐ 95.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
30Huang H‐L, Huang JS, Ko CC, Hsu JT, Chang CH, Chen MY. Effects of splinted prosthesis supported a wide implant or two implants: a three‐dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16: 466‐ 472.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
31Sevimay M, Turhan F, Kiliçarslan MA, Eskitascioglu G. Three‐dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of different bone quality on stress distribution in an implant‐supported crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93: 227‐ 234.
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
32Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted screw‐retained prostheses on short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 1176‐ 1182.
PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
33Hänggi MP, Hänggi DC, Schoolfield JD, Meyer J, Cochran DL, Hermann JS. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: a retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non‐submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol. 2005; 76: 791‐ 802.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
34Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A. Peri‐implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2012; 39: 1097‐ 1113.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
35Atieh M, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Periodontol. 2010; 81: 1350‐ 1366.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
36Strietzel FP, Neumann K, Hertel M. Impact of platform switching on marginal peri‐implant bone‐level changes. A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015; 26: 342‐ 358.
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
37Frost HMA. 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74: 3‐ 15.
PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
38Frost HM. Wolff's law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64: 175‐ 188.
CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
39Testori T, Zuffetti F, Capelli M, Galli F, Weinstein RL, Del Fabbro M. Immediate versus conventional loading of post‐extraction implants in the edentulous jaws. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16: 926‐ 935.
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
40Chiapasco M, Colletti G, Coggiola A, Di Martino G, Anello T, Romeo E. Clinical outcome of the use of fresh frozen allogeneic bone grafts for the reconstruction of severely resorbed alveolar ridges: preliminary results of a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 450‐ 460.
Serial posts:
Share: Posted 2020-10-30 02:43:42
alveolar bone loss dental implants mucositis periimplantitis

New thoughts

Me:

glossary

en	in