Elika Madani1, Ralf Smeets2, Eric Freiwald3, Maryam Setareh Sanj4, Ole Jung5, Daniel Grubeanu6, Henning Hanken7, Anders Henningsen8. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Regenerative Orofacial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: elikamdn@gmail.com. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Regenerative Orofacial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: r.smeets@uke.de. 3. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: e.freiwald@uke.de. 4. Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: maryam.setareh@gmx.de. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Regenerative Orofacial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: ol.jung@uke.de. 6. Fresenius University, Idstein, Germany. Electronic address: Dres.Grubeanu.Block@t-online.de. 7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: h.hanken@uke.de. 8. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Division of Regenerative Orofacial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, German Armed Forces Hospital, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: a.henningsen@uke.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The preservation of peri-implant bone is one requirement for long-term success of dental implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of subcrestal placement on the crestal bone level of immediate versus delayed placed implants after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, data of 159 patients who received 330 implants was analyzed. Implants were placed subcrestally, crestally or supracrestally into fresh sockets or healed sites. Vertical bone level height was assessed radiographically and implants were followed up annually. The influence of patient and implant related risk factors for peri-implant bone loss was evaluated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Depth of implant placement was significantly correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.001, 95% CI). Least effective loss of crestal bone was determined when implants were placed between 1 mm and 1.99 mm subcrestally. Smoking significantly enhanced the risk of peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.04, 95% CI). Immediate implant placement was not positively correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.51, 95% CI). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, implant placement 1.08 mm subcrestally may be recommendable in order to avoid supracrestal expositions of platform-switched titanium implants over time.
PURPOSE: The preservation of peri-implant bone is one requirement for long-term success of dental implants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of subcrestal placement on the crestal bone level of immediate versus delayed placed implants after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, data of 159 patients who received 330 implants was analyzed. Implants were placed subcrestally, crestally or supracrestally into fresh sockets or healed sites. Vertical bone level height was assessed radiographically and implants were followed up annually. The influence of patient and implant related risk factors for peri-implant bone loss was evaluated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Depth of implant placement was significantly correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.001, 95% CI). Least effective loss of crestal bone was determined when implants were placed between 1 mm and 1.99 mm subcrestally. Smoking significantly enhanced the risk of peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.04, 95% CI). Immediate implant placement was not positively correlated with peri-implant bone loss (P = 0.51, 95% CI). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, implant placement 1.08 mm subcrestally may be recommendable in order to avoid supracrestal expositions of platform-switched titanium implants over time.
Authors: Davide Farronato; Pietro Mario Pasini; Mattia Manfredini; Cristian Scognamiglio; Andrea Alain Orsina; Marco Farronato Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Linna Guo; Ralf Smeets; Lan Kluwe; Philip Hartjen; Mike Barbeck; Claudio Cacaci; Martin Gosau; Anders Henningsen Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 5.923