Premium
Risk indicators for marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years: A retrospective longitudinal study
Author(s) -
Mameno Tomoaki,
Wada Masahiro,
Otsuki Motohiro,
Okuno Ikuhisa,
Ozeki Kenji,
Tahara Akihiko,
Ikebe Kazunori
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1002/jper.18-0756
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , bone resorption , retrospective cohort study , maxilla , resorption , implant , oral hygiene , orthodontics , surgery
Abstract Background Marginal bone stability is considered one of the most important issues in implant dentistry. It is essential to understand how various factors influence bone resorption around implants. The purpose of this retrospective longitudinal study was to identify potential risk indicators associated with marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years. Methods Several systemic‐related, intraoral‐related, implant‐related factors were collected. Marginal bone level change (MBLC) was determined by comparing intraoral radiographs taken at baseline (1 year after prosthesis delivery), and at follow‐up (over 3 years from baseline). A hierarchical regression analysis using liner mixed‐effects models was performed to examine correlations between MBLC and various factors. Results Overall, 514 patients with 1535 implants were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 62.9 years. Mean annual MBLC was 0.048 mm, and mean functional time was 5.96 years. The result showed that the following explanatory variables had significant effects on MBLC: functional time, plaque control record > 20%, Eichner index C1‐3, maxilla, cement‐retained superstructure, and keratinized mucosa width < 2 mm. We did not find statistically significant associations between bone resorption and some variables known as risk factors, such as diabetes, smoking, and history of periodontitis. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, longer functional time, poor oral hygiene, loss of occlusal support, location in the maxilla, cement‐retained superstructure, and less keratinized mucosa should be considered as risk indicators for bone resorption around implants.