Retrospective study on marginal bone loss around maxillary anterior implants with or without bone graft

Hee-Sun Hwang; Ji-Hye Jung; Yu-Lee Kim

doi:10.4047/jkap.2016.54.2.103

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.54(2) > 1034859

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Hwang, Jung, and Kim: Retrospective study on marginal bone loss around maxillary anterior implants with or without bone graft

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54(2):103-109.

Published online: 18 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2016.54.2.103

Retrospective study on marginal bone loss around maxillary anterior implants with or without bone graft

Hee-Sun Hwang, Ji-Hye Jung, Yu-Lee Kim^∗

Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Republic of Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Yu-Lee Kim Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Wonkwang University, 460 Iksan-Daero, Iksan 54538, Republic of Korea +82 63 859 2938: e-mail, pro11@wku.ac.kr

Received 5 January 201631 March 2016 Accepted 4 April 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study is to evaluate the clinical significance of implantation with simultaneous bone graft by comparing the marginal bone loss around maxillary anterior implants with or without bone graft.

Materials and methods

Patients treated with implant-retained restorations on maxillary anterior region at Implant Center, Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University between June 2011 and May 2014 were included in this study. Date of implant placement, implant diameter, implant length, implant-abutment connection type and whether the bone graft was done were investigated. The patient's periapical radiographs taken immediately after implantation and at the most recent visit were compared. Marginal bone loss was measured using Emago advanced v5.6 program (Oral diagnostic systems, Amsterdam, Netherlands). Statistical analysis was done in independent t-test by using SPSS 22.0 program.

Results

As a result of observing on 83 implants (without bone graft: 44, with bone graft: 39) of 52 patients for 6 - 45 months (average: 18.4 months), implants without bone graft showed 1.42 ± 0.42 mm, implants with bone graft showed 1.28 ± 0.45 mm of marginal bone loss.

Conclusion

In limitations of this study, implants with simultaneous bone graft had significantly less marginal bone loss than implants without bone graft. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54:103-9)

Keywords: Dental implant, Anterior maxilla, Bone graft, Marginal bone loss, Digital subtraction radiography

REFERENCES

1.Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with os-seointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 50:114–5.

2.Walid AJ., Shi Bin. Restoration of missing upper anterior teeth using dental implant simultaneous with bone grafting- A case report. J Dent Oral health. 2014. 1:1–8.

3.McAllister BS., Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007. 78:377–96.

4.Boronat A., Carrillo C., Penarrocha M., Pennarocha M. Dental implants placed simultaneously with bone grafts in horizontal de-fects: a clinical retrospective study with 37 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010. 25:189–96.

5.Sbordone C., Toti P., Guidetti F., Califano L., Santoro A., Sbordone L. Volume changes of iliac crest autogenous bone grafts after vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation of atrophic maxillas and mandibles: a 6-year computerized tomographic follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012. 70:2559–65.

6.Bengazi F., Wennström JL., Lekholm U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2-year longitudinal prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996. 7:303–10.

7.Kwon JY., Kim YS., Kim CW. Assessing changes of peri-implant bone using digital subtraction radiography. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2001. 39:273–80.

8.Han WJ. A comparison of subtracted images from dental subtraction programs. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2002. 32:147–51.

9.Bittar-Cortez JA., Passeri LA., de Almeida SM., Haiter-Neto F. Comparison of peri-implant bone level assessment in digitized conventional radiographs and digital subtraction images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006. 35:258–62.

10.Schropp L., Wenzel A., Kostopoulos L., Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003. 23:313–23.

11.Chang YY., Kang DH., Park JC., Kim JH., Yun JH., Kim ST., Jung UW., Park YB., Kim CS., Shim JS., Moon HS., Choi SH. Treatment of dehiscence or fenestration defect on maxillary anterior implants using guided bone regeneration: Case report. J Dental Implant Res. 2011. 30:65–70.

12.Johansson B., Bäck T., Hirsch JM. Cutting torque measurements in conjunction with implant placement in grafted and non-grafted maxillas as an objective evaluation of bone density: a possible method for identifying early implant failures? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004. 6:9–15.

13.Donos N., Mardas N., Chadha V. Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). J Clin Periodontol. 2008. 35:173–202.

14.Tonetti MS., Hämmerle CH; European Workshop on Periodontology Group C. Advances in bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008. 35:168–72.

15.Greenstein G., Greenstein B., Cavallaro J., Elian N., Tarnow D. Flap advancement: practical techniques to attain tension-free primary closure. J Periodontol. 2009. 80:4–15.

16.Hellem S., Astrand P., Stenstro öm B., Engquist B., Bengtsson M., Dahlgren S. Implant treatment in combination with lateral augmentation of the alveolar process: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003. 5:233–40.

17.Benic´ GI., Jung RE., Siegenthaler DW., Hämmerle CH. Clinical and radiographic comparison of implants in regenerated or native bone: 5-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009. 20:507–13.

18.Bazrafshan N., Darby I. Retrospective success and survival rates of dental implants placed with simultaneous bone augmentation in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014. 25:768–73.

19.von Arx T., Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006. 17:359–66.

20.Pierrisnard L., Renouard F., Renault P., Barquins M. Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003. 5:254–62.

21.Kim CY., Kim SS., In HS., Kim YL. Evaluation of marginal bone loss around platform-switched implants by digital subtraction radiography. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2015. 31:33–44.

22.Koo KT., Lee EJ., Kim JY., Seol YJ., Han JS., Kim TI., Lee YM., Ku Y., Wikesjo¨ UM., Rhyu IC. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol. 2012. 83:1104–9.

23.Gurgel-Juarez NC., de Almeida EO., Rocha EP., Freitas AC Jr., Anchieta RB., de Vargas LC., Kina S., França FM. Regular and platform switching: bone stress analysis varying implant type. J Prosthodont. 2012. 21:160–6.

24.Schwarz F., Alcoforado G., Nelson K., Schaer A., Taylor T., Beuer F., Strietzel FP. Impact of implant-abutment connection, positioning of the machined collar/microgap, and platform switching on crestal bone level changes. Camlog Foundation Consensus Report. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014. 25:1301–3.

Fig. 1.

References used to measure the actual marginal bone loss. L = D×L' / D' L: Actual marginal bone loss (mm) L': Measured marginal bone loss on digital subtraction image (mm) D: Actual diameter of implant fixture platform (mm) D': Measured diameter of implant fixture platform on digital subtraction image (mm)

Table 1.

Distribution of implants used in th his study

Implant-abutment connection type	Implant diameter	Implant length	With or without bone number graft
External hex	∅3.25 mm: 3	10 mm: 2	Nongrafted: 27	47
	∅3.3 mm: 8	11.5 mm: 29	Grafted: 20
	∅3.75 mm: 12	13 mm: 16
	∅4.0 mm: 24
Internal hex	∅3.4 mm: 4	9.5 mm: 1	Nongrafted: 17	36
	∅3.5 mm: 15	10 mm: 3	Grafted: 19
	∅3.8 mm: 10	11.5 mm: 2
	∅4.0 mm: 7	13 mm: 20
		15 mm: 10

Table 2.

Marginal bone loss around implants with or without bone graft

	Number of implants (n)	Marginal bone loss (mm) (mean ± SD)
	Number of implants (n)	Mesial	Distal	Mean
Nongrafted	44	1.48 ± 0.71	1.36 ± 0.48	1.42 ± 0.42
Grafted	39	1.35 ± 0.58	1.20 ± 0.42	1.28 ± 0.45

∗ Different letters are significantly different (P<.05).

Table 3.

Marginal bone loss around implants according to implant diameter

Implant diameter (mm)	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Marginal bone loss (mm) (mean ± SD)
Implant diameter (mm)	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Mesial	Distal	Mean
3.25 - 3.5	Nongrafted	18	1.63 ± 0.97	1.42 ± 0.49	1.53 ± 0.54
3.25 - 3.5	Grafted	12	1.45 ± 0.66	1.20 ± 0.38	1.33 ± 0.49
3.75 - 4.0	Nongrafted	26	1.38 ± 0.46	1.31 ± 0.48	1.35 ± 0.33
3.75 - 4.0	Grafted	27	1.31 ± 0.55	1.21 ± 0.25	1.26 ± 0.44

Table 4.

Marginal bone loss around implants according to implant length

Implant length (mm)	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Marginal bone loss (mm) (mean ± SD)
Implant length (mm)	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Mesial	Distal	Mean
9.5 - 10.0	Nongrafted	1	1.28 ± 0.00	1.88 ± 0.00	1.58 ± 0.00
9.5 - 10.0	Grafted	5	1.31 ± 0.60	1.12 ± 0.10	1.22 ± 0.30
11.5 - 15.0	Nongrafted	43	1.48 ± 0.72	1.34 ± 0.48	1.42 ± 0.44
11.5 - 15.0	Grafted	34	1.36 ± 0.59	1.22 ± 0.45	1.29 ± 0.47

Table 5.

Marginal bone loss around implants according to implant-abutment connection type

Implant-abutment connection type	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Marginal bone loss (mm) (mean ± SD)
Implant-abutment connection type	With or without bone graft	Number of implants (n)	Mesial	Distal	Mean
External hex	Nongrafted	20	1.32 ± 0.47	1.29 ± 0.46	1.31 ± 0.33
External hex	Grafted	27	1.32 ± 0.52	1.12 ± 0.36	1.22 ± 0.39
Internal hex	Nongrafted	19	1.73 ± 0.95	1.47 ± 0.51	1.60 ± 0.52
Internal hex	Grafted	17	1.38 ± 0.66	1.29 ± 0.47	1.34 ± 0.51

TOOLS

Similar articles