Literature DB >> 31624607

Early crestal bone loss: Is it really loss?

Algirdas Puisys1,2, Viktorija Auzbikaviciute1,2, Agne Minkauskaite1,2, Renata Simkunaite-Rizgeliene3, Dainius Razukevicius4, Rokas Linkevicius2,4, Tomas Linkevicius2,3.   

Abstract

Bone remineralization around dental implants might be possible after early crestal bone loss.
© 2019 VIC Clinic. Clinical Case Reports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone remineralization; bone stability; crestal bone loss

Year:  2019        PMID: 31624607      PMCID: PMC6787785          DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.2376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Case Rep        ISSN: 2050-0904


INTRODUCTION

Early crestal bone loss is defined as a bone resorption around dental implant neck within 1 year postloading. Due to its frequency, the certain amount of bone loss is becoming a norm. Albrektsoon et al in 1896,1 already stated that 1.5 mm of bone loss at the 1 year after loading can be considered as a success, if later bone loss does not exceed 0.2 mm annually. Even though this statement was three decades ago, the clinicians still keep it as a normal bone remodeling process. However, not stable bone may cause different problems, leaving the clinician uncertain, if the implant will be stable for longer. For this reason, clinician's duty is to seek as least bone loss as possible. Within the 1 year of loading, bone matures and becomes more dense, and occlusal forces that initially cause crestal bone loss are not great enough to evoke further bone resorption. The question arises, is it possible not only to prevent bone resorbtion but also anticipate bone remineralization with increased crestal bone around dental implant? This article describes several clinical cases where we observed bone remineralization around implants within two years history of early crestal bone loss.

CLINICAL CASES

In this article, we are going to present you 3 different clinical cases of early crestal bone loss and bone remineralization.

Case 1

Bone level (Biohorizons) implant was placed at the site of #46 tooth simultaneously with healing abutment. After 3 months of osseointegration (Figure 1A), metal ceramic crown was placed with a regular platform (Figure 1B). During regular checkup, bone remineralization around dental implant #46 is visible together with stable crestal bone (Figure 1C).
Figure 1

A, Early crestal bone loss after implant placement at 2011. 89 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading at 2012. 88 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 89 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

A, Early crestal bone loss after implant placement at 2011. 89 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading at 2012. 88 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 89 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

Case 2

Another clinical case shows similar postop result. Bone level (Biohorizons) dental implant was placed nonsubmerged. Periapical X‐ray before prosthetic treatment shows early crestal bone loss (Figure 2A). After implant loading with a metal ceramic crown and regular platform, bone remains similar with previous observations (Figure 2B). Two years later, periapical radiograph was made and it shows bone remineralization at the site #36 (Figure 2C). Crestal bone contour is stable.
Figure 2

A, Early crestal bone loss after implant placement at 2011. 88 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading at 2012. 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

A, Early crestal bone loss after implant placement at 2011. 88 × 119 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading at 2012. 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

Case 3

Third clinical case: Patient came to the clinic for the implant placement at the site #36. Bone level (Straumann) dental implant was placed, and healing abutment was screwed at the same surgery. Three months later, periapical X‐ray reveals pleasant results but still early crestal bone loss is visible (Figure 3A). During prosthetic treatment, implant was loaded with metal ceramic crown and platform switching (Figure 3B). Two years later, a regular checkup and new periapical X‐ray were made. It is seen that bone remineralization occurred also in this case with a stable crestal bone around implant neck (Figure 3C).
Figure 3

A, After implant placement at 2012. 89 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading three months later. 87 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

A, After implant placement at 2012. 89 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). B, Implant loading three months later. 87 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI). C, Bone remineralization after 2 y (2014). 88 × 118 mm (72 × 72 DPI)

DISCUSSION

Three similar cases were showed with visible crestal bone loss and following remineralization process around dental implants. With this in mind, it can be presumed that not always crestal bone loss is real bone resorption of the bone tissue. In some cases, only demineralization of crestal bone happens, looking like a bone loss in periapical X‐ray. Demineralization is the process caused by inflammation when mineral ions of hydroxyapatite (HA) removed from the hard tissues, particularly in the bone.2 Even though HA is one of the most stable calcium phosphate salt,3 the inflammation process might lead to the bone matrix changes following bone loss. Inflammation is related with the overproduction of various cytokines and bone cells.4 They initiate hyperactivation of osteoclasts and lead to the bone degradation; also, some cytokines negatively affect osteoblast function.5 Remineralization might be achieved by increasing osteoblasts function; particularly, these cells promote crystal formation of hydroxyapatite, propagate growth in the interior part of membrane‐limited matrix vesicles,6 and induce crystals in the collagenous extracellular matrix thus mineralizing bone matrix overall.7 There are many factors influencing early crestal bone loss. The most important are platform switching, polished implant neck, stable connection, and sufficient vertical soft tissue thickness around implant neck.8 Paying attention to these factors, it seems possible to have a huge potential for zero bone loss or even bone remineralization, if it happens. Previous option is already seen in our clinical practice. As a weakness of this statement could be mentioned accuracy of periapical X‐rays, the state of being parallel and equally angulated. Bone remineralization may occur around dental implants with a history of early crestal bone loss after loading. There is still considerable uncertainty of exact histological process of bone matrix around dental implant neck. In order to have comprehensive evidence‐based analysis, further experimental investigations are needed to estimate accurate results.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

PA: was responsible for the surgery part of the treatment; AV: interpreted the patient data, designed, and wrote the manuscript; MA: was in charge for the data collection; SRR: involved in description of histological part for the remineralization process; RD: analyzed data; LR: designed the manuscript; TL: performed prosthetic part of the treatment.
  8 in total

Review 1.  Cellular and Molecular Aspects of Bone Remodeling.

Authors:  Wenmei Xiao; Yu Wang; Sandra Pacios; Shuai Li; Dana T Graves
Journal:  Front Oral Biol       Date:  2015-11-24

Review 2.  Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss.

Authors:  Angel Insua; Alberto Monje; Hom-Lay Wang; Richard J Miron
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 4.396

3.  Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial to compare hard tissue changes following socket preservation using alloplasts, xenografts vs no grafting: Clinical and histological findings.

Authors:  Eli E Machtei; Yaniv Mayer; Jacob Horwitz; Hadar Zigdon-Giladi
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.932

Review 4.  The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success.

Authors:  T Albrektsson; G Zarb; P Worthington; A R Eriksson
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  The influence of mucosal tissue thickening on crestal bone stability around bone-level implants. A prospective controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Algirdas Puisys; Tomas Linkevicius
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 5.977

6.  Tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase and plasma cell membrane glycoprotein-1 are central antagonistic regulators of bone mineralization.

Authors:  Lovisa Hessle; Kristen A Johnson; H Clarke Anderson; Sonoko Narisawa; Adnan Sali; James W Goding; Robert Terkeltaub; José Luis Millan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-06-24       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  Ultrastructure and biological function of matrix vesicles in bone mineralization.

Authors:  Tomoka Hasegawa
Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 4.304

Review 8.  Demineralization-remineralization dynamics in teeth and bone.

Authors:  Ensanya Ali Abou Neel; Anas Aljabo; Adam Strange; Salwa Ibrahim; Melanie Coathup; Anne M Young; Laurent Bozec; Vivek Mudera
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2016-09-19
  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Marginal Bone Level and Bone Thickness Reduction in Delayed and Immediate Implant Placement Protocol 6 Months Post-loading: An Observational Clinical Prospective Study.

Authors:  Maroun Dagher; Nadim Mokbel; Rami Aboukhalil; Nabil Ghosn; Abdelrahman Kassir; Nada Naaman
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2022-01-07

2.  What Does Bone Corticalization around Dental Implants Mean in Light of Ten Years of Follow-Up?

Authors:  Marcin Kozakiewicz; Małgorzata Skorupska; Tomasz Wach
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Restorative angle of zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases influences the initial marginal bone loss: 5-year results of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Franz J Strauss; Marina Siegenthaler; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Irena Sailer; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-05-29       Impact factor: 5.021

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.