An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study


Por: Castellanos-Cosano L, Carrasco-García A, Corcuera-Flores JR, Silvestre-Rangil J, Torres-Lagares D and Machuca-Portillo G

Publicada: 1 jul 2021 Ahead of Print: 1 ene 2021
Categoría: Dentistry (miscellaneous)

Resumen:
To evaluate implant loss (IL) and marginal bone loss (MBL); follow-up period of up to 10 years after prosthetic loading. Retrospective multi-centre cross-sectional cohort study. Double analysis: (1) all the implants (n = 456) were analysed; (2) to allow for possible cluster error, one implant per patient (n = 143) was selected randomly. Statistical analysis: Spearman's correlation coefficient; Kruskal-Wallis (post-hoc U-Mann-Whitney); Chi-square (post-hoc Haberman). (1) Analysing all the implants (456): IL was observed in patients with past periodontitis (6 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.05), short implants (12 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001) and when using regenerative surgery (11.3 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001); greater MBL was observed among smokers (0.39 +/- 0.52 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.29, p < 0.01), maxillary implants (0.28 +/- 0.37 vs. 0.1 +/- 0.17, p < 0.0001), anterior region implants (0.32 +/- 0.36 vs. 0.21 +/- 0.33, p < 0.001), external connection implants (0.2 +/- 0.29 vs. 0.63 +/- 0.59, p < 0.0001), and 2-3 years after loading (p < 0.0001). (2) analysing the cluster (143): IL was observed in smokers (18.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05), splinted fixed crowns (12.9%, p < 0.01), short implants (22.2 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.01) and when using regenerative surgery (19.2 vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01); greater MBL was observed in maxillary implants (0.25 +/- 0.35 vs. 0.11 +/- 0.18, p < 0.05), in the anterior region (p < 0.05), in the first 3 years (p < 0.01), in external connection implants (0.72 +/- 0.71 vs. 0.19 +/- 0.26, p < 0.01) and in short implants (0.38 +/- 0.31 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.32, p < 0.05). There is greater risk in smokers, patients with past periodontal disease, external connection implants, the use of short implants and when regenerative techniques are used. To prevent MBL and IL, implantologists should be very meticulous in indicating implants in patients affected by these host factors.

Filiaciones:
Castellanos-Cosano L:
 Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Carrasco-García A:
 School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Corcuera-Flores JR:
 Master Program, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

:
 Department of Stomatology, Stomatology and Oral Surgery, Dr. Peset University Hospital, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Torres-Lagares D:
 Professor and Chairman of Special Care Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, C/Avicena S/N, 41009, Seville, Spain

Machuca-Portillo G:
 Professor and Chairman of Special Care Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Seville, C/Avicena S/N, 41009, Seville, Spain.
ISSN: 16181255





ODONTOLOGY
Editorial
Springer Verlag, ONE NEW YORK PLAZA, SUITE 4600, NEW YORK, NY, UNITED STATES, Japón
Tipo de documento: Article
Volumen: 109 Número: 3
Páginas: 649-660
WOS Id: 000612070000001
ID de PubMed: 33496913

MÉTRICAS