Significant Difference In Marginal Bone Level Research Articles

Multivariate analysis of the influence of prosthodontic factors on peri-implant bleeding index and marginal bone level in a molar site: A cross-sectional study.

Peri-implant tissue condition can result from prosthodontic, surgical and bacteriological factors. This study investigated the effects of prosthodontic factors on peri-implant tissue. Subjects were 140 patients with 310 implants from Osaka University Dental Hospital. Prosthodontic factors examined were the connection type, the suprastructure retention type, the material of the abutment and the mesiodistal and buccolingual prosthetic form of the superstructure as emergence angle. The objective variables were the modified bleeding index (mBI) and marginal bone level (MBL). Statistical analysis was used as a generalized estimation equation. The taper joint had a significantly smaller MBL than the butt joint (P < .001). There was no significant difference in mBI and MBL between cement and screw retaining. Zirconium and titanium resulted in a significantly smaller mBI than gold alloy (zirconium/gold alloy: P = .037, titanium / gold alloy: P = .021), but there was no significant difference in the MBL. Both mBI and MBL tended to be smaller when the emergence angle was around 20° to 40°, although this difference was not significant. As a result of multivariate analysis, our findings suggest that to reduce MBL from the perspective of prosthodontic factors it is preferable to use an implant with a taper joint connection positioned with an emergence angle of 20° to 40°.

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IntroductionSandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.MethodsThe systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.ResultsLiterature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06–0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09–0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.

Short Implants and Conventional Implants in The Residual Maxillary Alveolar Ridge: A 36-Month Follow-Up Observation.

BackgroundShort dental implants are considered an alternative method of treatment to the maxillary sinus elevation and bone augmentation procedure at the sites of a reduced alveolar ridge height.The aim of the study was to determine the most effective therapeutic approach for a single tooth replacement in a reduced maxillary alveolar crest.Material/MethodsWe enrolled 30 partially edentulous patients having a residual crestal height of 6 mm and a minimal width of the alveolar ridge of 6–7 mm: 15 patients received regular dental implants (OsseoSpeed™ L11 Ø4 mm and L13 Ø4 mm) and the implantation was preceded by the sinus lift procedure from a lateral window approach with the application of a xenogeneic bone graft, whereas the remaining 15 patients received short implants (OsseoSpeed™ L6 mm Ø4 mm) without the sinus lift and augmentation procedure.All implants were loaded with single non-splinted crowns. Radiological examination (CBCT, RVG) was performed before the surgery and after 36 months. Primary and secondary stabilization with Osstell ISQ® and Periotest® were assessed.ResultsGood results in primary and secondary stability were achieved in both systems. The marginal bone level (MBL) loss was low (0.22±0.46 mm and 0.34±0.24 mm, for short and conventional implants, respectively). No significant difference in MBL between groups was found.ConclusionsShort implants can be successfully used to support single crowns in the lateral part of the maxilla.