Bone-implant contact around crestal and subcrestal dental implants submitted to immediate and conventional loading.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pontes AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4211156 | biostudies-other | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this study was to estimate 1-year survival for delayed versus immediately loaded implants and identify risk factors for implant failure.This was a retrospective cohort study, consisting of a sample of subjects who had greater than or equal to 1 Bicon dental implant (Bicon, Boston, MA) placed over a 13-year period. The primary predictor variable was method of implant loading: delayed (3 to 6 months after placement) or immediately after insertion. Secondary predictor variables were classified as demographic, anatomic, implant/abutment, and reconstructive. The outcome variable was implant failure, defined as removal of the implant, and was recorded as months of survival. Descriptive, Kaplan-Meier, and univariate Cox proportional hazards statistics were computed. Univariate associations with P <or= .15 and biologically relevant variables (eg, age, gender) were included in a marginal multiple Cox regression model. In the multiple model, a P value of <or= .05 was considered statistically significant.The study sample consisted of 677 subjects who had 2,349 delayed-loaded dental implants and 178 patients who had 477 immediate-loaded implants. The unadjusted 1-year survival estimates for the delayed and immediate loading groups were 95.5% and 90.3%, respectively (P < .01). In the marginal multiple Cox regression model, immediate loading, current tobacco use, maxillary implants, and shorter implants were associated with failure (P <or= .05).In this study, implants loaded immediately were 2.7 times (after adjusting) more likely to fail at 1 year compared with delayed-loaded implants.
| S-EPMC5560427 | biostudies-other
Project description:The aim of this study was to determine the clinical differences between early and conventional loading protocols for dental implants. A comprehensive search of the Medline, Embase, and OVID databases for studies published through January 10, 2015 was conducted. Fourteen studies were included in our analysis. We found that early loading imposed a significantly higher risk of implant failure than did conventional loading (risk ratio = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.18, 3.69], P = 0.01), while no significant differences between the methods were found with regards to the marginal bone loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28], P = 0.23), periotest value (WMD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.87], P = 0.96), or implant stability quotient (WMD = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.62], P = 0.06). As for the health status of the peri-implant tissue, conventionally loaded implants demonstrated better performance than did early loaded implants. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the sample size, time of publication, loading definition, implant position, extent, and restoration type influenced the results. Although early implant loading is convenient and comfortable for patients, this method still cannot achieve the same clinical outcomes as the conventional loading method.
| S-EPMC4635353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. "Grey" literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test.ResultsOf 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with 400 implants. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI - 0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported 5.03% implant failure rate (10 of 199 implants) in ILP group and 1.00% failure rate (2 of 201 implants) in DLP group in total.ConclusionsFor unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124.
| S-EPMC7968211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim:To compare implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted by using ultrasonic implant site preparation (UISP) (test) and conventional rotary instrumentation (control). Methods:Two single implants were inserted for each patient: after randomization, test site was prepared by using an ultrasonic device (Piezosurgery Touch, Mectron, Italy) and control site was prepared by using the drills of the selected implant system (Premium AZT, Sweden & Martina, Italy), until reaching a final diameter of 3?mm in both groups. Identical implants (3.8x11.5?mm) were inserted in all sites at crestal level. Impressions were taken and screwed resin single crowns with platform-switched provisional abutments were delivered with 48 hours. Periapical radiographs were taken at provisional crown insertion (T0), 6 months (T1) and one year (T2) after prosthetic loading to measure MBL. All data were tested for normality and subsequently analyzed by paired samples t-test and forward multiple linear regression. Results:Forty-eight patients were treated in six centers with the insertion of ninety-six implants (48 test; 48 control). Four implants in four patients failed within the first six months of healing (two in test group; two in control group; no difference between groups). Forty patients (age 60.1±10.7 years; 22 female, 18 male) were included in the final analysis. Mean MBL after six months of loading was 1.39±1.03?mm in the test group and 1.42±1.16?mm in the control group (p>0.05) and after one year was 1.92±1.14?mm and 2.14±1.55?mm in test and control, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusions:No differences in survival rate and MBL were demonstrated between UISP and conventional site preparation with rotary instruments in immediately loaded dental implants: UISP, with its characteristics of enhanced surgical control and safety in proximity of delicate structures, may be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional drilling systems.
| S-EPMC6112219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmediate loading is an attractive option for avoiding secondary surgery. However, it is unclear whether it provides a better aesthetic outcome compared to conventional loading with implants placed in healed ridges.AimsTo compare the aesthetic outcomes of immediately and conventionally loaded single implants in healed anterior maxillary ridges.MethodologyA systematic review using PICO was conducted. EMBASE, MEDLINE and DoSS databases were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised Controlled Trials and the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool for other study designs were used for quality appraisal. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsA total of 622 articles were identified. After screening, a total of five papers were included. Results indicated no statistically significant difference in pink or white aesthetic scores between the immediate and conventional loading groups at 1- and 5-year review and the Papilla Index at the 1-year review.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this review, immediate loading of single implants provides a comparable aesthetic outcome to conventional loading in healed ridges of the anterior maxillary.
| S-EPMC8360987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This dental record-based retrospective study aimed to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants in a group of smokers in relation to a matched group of non-smokers, with a special focus on five different frequencies of daily smoking (non-smokers, and frequency of 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 20 cig./day). Only implants with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up were considered. Univariate linear regression models were used to compare MBL over time between 12 clinical covariates, after which a linear mixed-effects model was built. After matching of the patients, the study included 340 implants in 104 smokers, and 337 implants in 100 non-smokers. The results suggested that smoking degree (greater MBL for higher degrees of smoking), bruxism (greater MBL for bruxers), jaw (greater MBL in maxilla), prosthesis fixation (greater MBL for screw-retained prosthesis), and implant diameter (greater MBL for 3.75-4.10 mm) had a significant influence on MBL over time. There appears to be a positive correlation between the degree of smoking and the degree of MBL, meaning, the higher the degree of smoking, the greater the MBL. However, the difference is not apparent for different degrees of smoking when this is high, namely above 10 cigarettes per day.
| S-EPMC9960336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The time-course of cancellous bone regeneration surrounding mechanically loaded implants affects implant fixation, and is relevant to determining optimal rehabilitation protocols following orthopaedic surgeries. We investigated the influence of controlled mechanical loading of titanium-coated polyether-ether ketone (PEEK) implants on osseointegration using time-lapsed, non-invasive, in vivo micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans. Implants were inserted into proximal tibial metaphyses of both limbs of eight female Sprague-Dawley rats. External cyclic loading (60 or 100 μm displacement, 1 Hz, 60 s) was applied every other day for 14 days to one implant in each rat, while implants in contralateral limbs served as the unloaded controls. Hind limbs were imaged with high-resolution micro-CT (12.5 μm voxel size) at 2, 5, 9, and 12 days post-surgery. Trabecular changes over time were detected by 3D image registration allowing for measurements of bone-formation rate (BFR) and bone-resorption rate (BRR). At day 9, mean %BV/TV for loaded and unloaded limbs were 35.5 ± 10.0% and 37.2 ± 10.0%, respectively, and demonstrated significant increases in bone volume compared to day 2. BRR increased significantly after day 9. No significant differences between bone volumes, BFR, and BRR were detected due to implant loading. Although not reaching significance (p = 0.16), an average 119% increase in pull-out strength was measured in the loaded implants. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:997-1006, 2017.
| S-EPMC5800527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Immediate implant placement and restoration (IPR), is a reliable treatment modality. Purpose: This historical prospective study evaluated the medium-term outcomes of hard tissue after IPR in the anterior maxilla with simultaneous hard tissue augmentation. Methods: Seventy-three patients treated with single-implant IPR in the anterior maxilla were followed for 1-8 years. Treatment involved, atraumatic extraction, immediate implant placement and abutment adaptation, followed by simultaneous augmentation with mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) particles to fill the gaps and restore the ridge. The surgical site was stabilized with a resorbable collagen membrane, followed by the connection of an acrylic provisional restoration. Results: All implants osseointegrated during the follow-up period (mean, 34 ± 22 months). Radiographic evaluation of the distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and crestal bone level (CBL) was of 0.86 ± 0.86 mm and 0.8 ± 0.84 mm mesially and distally, respectively. Splitting the results into up to 3 years and 3-8 years of follow-up data, the corresponding values were 0.90 ± 0.83 and 0.68 ± 0.88 for the mesial aspect and 0.99 ± 0.87and 0.74 ± 0.83 for the distal aspect, respectively. Mean peri-implant probing depth was 3.63 mm (SD ± 1.06) and 16 implants (22%) presented at least one bleeding pocket of ?5 mm (peri implant mucositis). Conclusions: The immediate replacement of a single maxillary tooth by implants combined with guided bone regeneration is a predictable treatment modality with favorable peri-implant bony response.
| S-EPMC7068471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early marginal bone loss (MBL) is a non-infective remodeling process of variable entity occurring within the first year after implant placement. It has a multifactorial etiology, being influenced by both surgical and prosthetic factors. Their impact remains a matter of debate, and controversial information is available, particularly regarding implants placed subcrestally. The present multicenter prospective clinical study aimed to correlate marginal bone loss around platform-switched implants with conical connection inserted subcrestally to general and local factors. Fifty-five patients were enrolled according to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria by four clinical centers. Single or multiple implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, South Korea) were inserted in the posterior mandible with a one-stage protocol. Impressions were taken after two months of healing (T1), screwed metal-ceramic restorations were delivered three months after implant insertion (T2), and patients were recalled after six months (T3) and twelve months (T4) of prosthetic loading. Periapical radiographs were acquired at each time point. Bone levels were measured at each time point on both mesial and distal aspects of implants. Linear mixed models were fitted to the data to identify predictors associated with MBL. Fifty patients (25 male, 25 female; mean age 58.0 ± 12.8) with a total of 83 implants were included in the final analysis. The mean subcrestal position of the implant shoulder at baseline was 1.24 ± 0.57 mm, while at T4, it was 0.46 ± 0.59 mm under the bone level. Early marginal bone remodeling was significantly influenced by implant insertion depth and factors related to biological width establishment (vertical mucosal thickness, healing, and prosthetic abutment height). Deep implant insertion, thin peri-implant mucosa, and short abutments were associated with greater marginal bone loss up to six months after prosthetic loading. Peri-implant bone levels tended to stabilize after this time, and no further marginal bone resorption was recorded at twelve months after implant loading.
| S-EPMC6723035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of the present retrospective study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants in a group of diabetic patients in relation to a matched group of non-diabetic patients.Materials and methodsThe present dental record-based retrospective study included patients selected from individuals treated with dental implants at one specialist clinic in Malmö, Sweden. Patients were excluded if they had history of periodontitis and/or were treated for periodontal disease. The study group included 710 implants installed in 180 patients (mean age 60.3±13.0 years), 349 implants in 90 diabetic (21 T1DM and 69 T2DM patients), and 361 implants in 90 non-diabetic patients.ResultsThe results suggested that jaw (greater MBL in the maxilla), diabetes (greater MBL for diabetic patients, and worse for T1DM patients), bruxism (greater MBL for bruxers), and smoking (greater MBL for smokers and former smokers) had a statistically significant influence on MBL over time.ConclusionsPatients with diabetes have an estimated greater MBL over time compared to non-diabetic patients. The difference was greater in patients with diabetes type 1 compared to patients with diabetes type 2. Bruxism, smoking, and implant location (maxilla) were also associated with a higher loss of marginal bone around implants over time.Clinical relevanceAwareness of the possible influence of diabetes on the long-term outcomes of dental implant treatment is important, in order to be able to minimize the possibility of a high MBL with time, which can eventually lead to the loss of the implant.
| S-EPMC10264467 | biostudies-literature