Influence of Apico-Coronal Implant Placement on Post-Surgical Crestal Bone Loss in Humans

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (8) ◽  
pp. 762-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Ercoli ◽  
Georges Jammal ◽  
Madeline Buyers ◽  
Alexandra Athanasiou Tsigarida ◽  
Konstantinos Michail Chochlidakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Changing Preference of One- Vs. Two-Stage Implant Placement in Partially Edentulous Individuals: An 18-Year Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
pp. 7060
Author(s):  
Liat Chaushu ◽  
Sarit Naishlos ◽  
Ofir Rosner ◽  
Eran Zenziper ◽  
Ari Glikman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Gingival Index ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
The One

The purpose of the present long-term retrospective study was to assess the changing preference of one- vs. two-stage implant placement in partially edentulous individuals. The clinical outcome measures were one- vs. two-stage implant placement, implant survival, and gingival index. The radiological outcome measure was crestal bone loss. Other recorded information included gender, age, implant characteristics (brand, type, length, diameter) and implant location (maxilla/mandible). A total of 393 implants in 111 patients were included. The results revealed that there were no significant demographic differences between the one- and two-stage implant placement groups. There was a preference for one-stage surgery when wide diameter implants were used and when the number of implants per patient was ≤3. The mandible was the major implant site in the one-stage surgery group. Crestal bone loss and gingival index were similar for the two groups in both the short and long term. It can be concluded that lack of any long-term differences in implant survival, crestal bone loss and gingival health around implants after one- or two-stage implant placement promoted a significant change over 18 years, increasing to 50% the prevalence of one-stage surgery.

scholarly journals The Vertical Soft Tissue Thickness and Subcrestal Implant Placement as Factors for Peri-implant Crestal bone Stability

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (D) ◽  
pp. 257-263
Author(s):  
Darko Veljanovski ◽  
Aneta Atanasovska-Stojanovska ◽  
Aleksandra Pivkova-Veljanovska ◽  
Eitan Mijiritsky ◽  
Curd Bollen
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Tissue Thickness ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Soft Tissue Thickness ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Mandibular Region ◽  
To Receive

Aim The aim of this prospective study was to determine the influence of vertical soft tissue thickness on bone level changes in platform-switched implants placed eqicrestally or subcrestally and restored with screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. Methods Platform-switched bone-level implants were placed in a single stage manner in the posterior mandibular region. Implant sites were divided into thick (control) and thin (test) vertical soft tissue groups. The implants in the control group were placed equicrestally. The implant sites from the control group were randomly allocated to receive equicrestally or subcrestally placed implants. Bone remodeling/loss was radiographically measured at baseline, three months postoperatively and six months after delivery of final prosthetic restoration. Results The mean crestal bone loss values three months postoperatively and six months post prosthetic restoration were higher in sites with thin versus sites with thick gingiva. In implant sites with thin gingiva, subcrestally placed implants presented less bone loss than eqicrestally placed implants. Conclusion Platform switched implants are prone to more bone loss when they are placed in sites with thin soft tissue, regardless of the type of final restoration (screw-retained or cement-retained). Subcrestal placement of platform-switched implants can prevent crestal bone loss in sites with vertical soft tissue thickness < 3 mm.    

Management of Combined Ridge Defect and Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation With Simultaneous Implant Placement—A 36-Month Follow-Up Case Report

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 225-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Saad Thafeed AlGhamdi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Pocket Depth ◽  
Ridge Augmentation ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Contour Change

Abstract This report demonstrated the management of combined ridge defect and maxillary sinus pneumatization with simultaneous implant placement. One case with vertical and horizontal ridge deficiency and sinus pneumatization in the maxillary premolar area was indicated for ridge augmentation and sinus elevation before implant placement. Implant osteotomy was enlarged using a ridge expansion osteotome to 1 mm short of the sinus floor; sinus elevation was performed using sinus lift osteotomes; the implant was placed; bone graft and resorbable membrane were used to augment the remaining defect. The second stage was done after 6 months, followed by final restoration. The patient was reevaluated for 36 months following the final prosthesis. The surgical site healed without complication following implant placement. During the second stage, the implant was completely surrounded by bone, with bone covering the buccal aspect of the cover screw. The X-ray showed a 5 mm apical shift of the sinus floor at 6 months post surgery. At 12 months post loading, crestal bone loss to the level of the first thread was noted; no changes were observed at the sinus or surrounding teeth. Pocket depth ranged from 3–4 mm. No further bone loss or soft tissue contour change was noted at 18, 24, 30, and 36 months post loading. The combination of these three techniques with simultaneous implant placement as described in this report seems to be successful. Further research is needed to evaluate whether the combination of these techniques with simultaneous implant placement offers similar results when compared with the stage approach.

Factors Associated With Crestal Bone Loss Following Dental Implant Placement in a Longitudinal Follow-up Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 579-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Y. Kim ◽  
Thomas B. Dodson ◽  
Duy T. Do ◽  
Gary Wadhwa ◽  
Sung-Kiang Chuang
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Multivariate Model ◽  
Predictor Variables ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Height

The purpose of this study is to estimate the magnitude of crestal bone loss and to identify factors associated with changes in crestal bone height following placement of dental implants. This was a retrospective cohort study, consisting of a sample derived from the population of patients who had at least 1 dental implant placed in a community practice over a 10-year period. A total of 11 predictor variables were grouped into demographic, related health status, anatomic, implant-specific, and operative categories. The primary outcome variable was a change in crestal bone height (mm) over the course of follow-up. The secondary outcome variable was crestal bone loss at 1 year grouped into 2 categories (bone loss &gt;1.5 mm and ≤1.5 mm). Univariate and multivariate regression mixed-effects models were developed to identify variables associated with crestal bone level changes over time. P values ≤.05 were considered statistically significant. The study sample was composed of 85 subjects who received 148 implants. The mean change of the crestal bone was −2.1 ± 1.5 mm (range = −12.5 to 0.5 mm; median = −1.77 mm). In the multivariate model, none of the variables studied were statistically associated with mean crestal bone loss. Among 84 (66.1%) implants with bone loss &gt;1.5 mm within 1 year, no variables were associated with bone loss in the multivariate model. Of the 11 predictor variables evaluated in this study, none were statistically significant with regard to an increased risk for crestal bone loss or for excessive bone loss within the first year after implant placement.

Reconstruction of Severely Atrophic Jaws Using Homografts and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Viscioni ◽  
Leone Rigo ◽  
Maurizio Franco ◽  
Giorgio Brunelli ◽  
Anna Avantaggiato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
High Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Fresh Frozen

Abstract In the past decade, several investigators have reported that implants inserted in autografts in the same operation (ie, simultaneously inserted implants [SIIs]) have achieved excellent results. However, no report regarding SIIs placed in fresh frozen bone (FFB) is available. Thus, the authors planned a retrospective study on a series of SIIs placed in homologue FFB (but not immediately loaded) to evaluate their clinical outcome. In addition, a comparison with implants inserted in FFB in a second stage (ie, delayed inserted implants) was performed. Seventeen patients were grafted with FFB, and 48 implants were inserted in the same operation. Implant diameter and length ranged from 3.25 to 4.0 mm and from 10.0 to 15 mm, respectively. Data were compared with 302 implants inserted in FFB in a second operation during the same period in 64 patients. Analyzing SIIs, it was noted that only 3 implants were lost (ie, survival rate [SVR]  =  93.7%), and no differences were detected among the studied variables by using lost implants as a predictor of clinical outcome. On the contrary, by using crestal bone resorption around the implant's neck and specific cutoff values, it was possible to demonstrate that prosthetic restoration (ie, removable overdentures) correlated with a statistically significant lower delta insertion abutment junction (ie, reduced crestal bone loss) and thus with a better clinical outcome. By comparing SIIs with implants inserted in a second stage in FFB, a better outcome for delayed implants was demonstrated. Implants inserted simultaneously with FFB grafts had a high survival and success rate. SIIs inserted in FFB can be considered reliable devices, although a higher marginal bone loss is to be expected when fixed prosthetic restorations are used. Implants inserted in a second surgical stage have a better SVR and success rate than SIIs.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Crestal Bone Resorption around Dental Implants in Flapped and Flapless Surgical Techniques Depending on Cone Beam CT Scan (Comparative Study)

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa A Al Najjar ◽  
Sahar Sh Al Adili
Keyword(s):  
Bone Resorption ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Healing Period ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: The long term survival of dental implants is evaluated by the amount of crestal bone loss around the implants. Some initial loss of bone around dental implants is generally expected. There is reason to believe that reflecting a mucoperiosteal flap promotes crestal bone loss in the initial phase after an implant has been inserted. The surgical placement of a dental implant fixture is constantly changing and in recent years, there has been some interest in developing techniques that minimize the invasive nature of the procedure, with flapless implant surgery being advocated. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic level of the peri- implant bone after implant placement between traditional flapped surgery and flapless approach depending on CBCT during 24 weeks healing period. Materials and Methods: A total of 25 Iraqi patients with an age ranged of 20-60 years who received 46 implants. Were randomized into two groups: control group which involved 27 implants inserted by conventional flapped surgical approach and study group which involved 19 implants inserted by flapless surgical approach. The bone level was measured by CBCT for each implant at buccal and palata/lingual sides at two times, immediately after implant placement (base line data), and after 24 weeks healing period. Results: There was no significant difference between study (flapless) and control (flapped) groups in the mean of total crestal bone resorption for buccal and palatal side after 24 weeks from implant placement (P= 0.393 for buccal side and P= 0.214 for palatal side). There was highly significant difference between buccal and palatal side regarding crestal bone loss around implants (P = 0.001) Conclusions: Bone resoption around dental implants placed with conventional flap surgery compared to flapless surgery does not seem to be influenced during the healing period before implant loading.

scholarly journals Evaluation of initial stability and crestal bone loss in immediate implant placement: Anin vivostudy

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 139 ◽  
Author(s):  
DurgaPrasad Tadi ◽  
HarshaBabu Vadapalli ◽  
Mahalakshmi Gujjalapudi ◽  
Sampath Kakaraparthi ◽  
Balaram Kolasani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Initial Stability ◽  
Crestal Bone Loss ◽  
Immediate Implant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document