			Home About us Contact

Peri-implant Bone Loss (peri-implant + bone_loss)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Clinical and Microbiological Determinants of Ailing Dental Implants

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 1 2009
Giorgio Tabanella DDS
ABSTRACT Background: The failure of the host tissue to establish or maintain osseointegration around dental implants is due to either occlusal or parafunctional forces, premature loading, ill-directed stress, or microbial infection. The long-term failure rate of dental implants is generally 5,10%. Although a variety of etiologies of early peri-implant bone loss (from implant placement to 1-year post-loading) have been proposed, factors associated with late implant failures are less well understood but are probably related to both the peri-implant microbial environment and host factors. Discriminating between causes of implant failure is of importance for instituting a successful implant therapy. Purpose: The objective of this cross-sectional split-mouth study was to identify clinical, radiographic, and bacterial characteristics of peri-implant disease sites. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral implants (Brånemark®, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden; and 3iÔ implant systems, Implant Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA) participated in the study. Sites with peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss beyond the third implant thread) and peri-implant healthy tissues (radiographic bone level above the first implant thread) were identified in periapical radiographs using a long-cone paralleling projection technique. Microbiological identification was carried out using established anaerobic culture techniques. A descriptive statistics based on means and standard deviations was reported. Results: Peri-implant bone loss was associated with the absence of radiographic crestal lamina dura, peri-implant pocket depth, pain on chewing, and the submucosal presence of the putative periodontopathogens Tannerella forsythia, Campylobacter species, and Peptostreptococcus micros. Pain was associated with P. micros, Fusobacterium species, and Eubacterium species. Discussion and Conclusion: The absence of radiographic crestal lamina dura and the presence of suspected major periodontal pathogens seem to be associated to peri-implantitis. [source]

A 10-year retrospective analysis of radiographic bone-level changes of implants supporting single-unit crowns in periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 9 2010
Sergio Matarasso
Abstract Aim: To compare the 10-year peri-implant bone loss (BL) rate in periodontally compromised (PCP) and periodontally healthy patients (PHP) around two different implant systems supporting single-unit crowns. Materials and methods: In this retrospective, controlled study, the mean BL (mBL) rate around dental implants placed in four groups of 20 non-smokers was evaluated after a follow-up of 10 years. Two groups of patients treated for periodontitis (PCP) and two groups of PHP were created. For each category (PCP and PHP), two different types of implant had been selected. The mBL was calculated by subtracting the radiographic bone levels at the time of crown cementation from the bone levels at the 10-year follow-up. Results: The mean age, mean full-mouth plaque and full-mouth bleeding scores and implant location were similar between the four groups. Implant survival rates ranged between 85% and 95%, without statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between groups. For both implant systems, PCP showed statistically significantly higher mBL rates and number of sites with BL,3 mm compared with PHP (P<0.0001). Conclusions: After 10 years, implants in PCP yielded lower survival rates and higher mean marginal BL rates compared with those of implants placed in PHP. These results were independent of the implant system used or the healing modality applied. To cite this article: Matarasso S, Rasperini G, Iorio Siciliano V, Salvi GE, Lang NP, Aglietta M. A 10-year retrospective analysis of radiographic bone-level changes of implants supporting single-unit crowns in periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 898,903. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01945.x [source]

Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 10 2008
Gian Andrea Hälg
Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t -test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. Results: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD±0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD±0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever. [source]