Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(04): 787-795
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739439
Original Article

Five-Year Prospective Study on Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Remodeling Expected Using Bone Level Implants with Sandblasted/Acid-Etched Surface and Conical Connection

Marco Tallarico 
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Aurea Maria Immacolata Lumbau
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Silvio Mario Meloni
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
,
Irene Ieria
2   Private Practice, Rome, Italy
,
Chang-Joo Park
3   Department of Dentistry, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
,
Lukasz Zadrożny 
4   Department of Dental Propedeutics and Prophylaxis, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
,
Erta Xhanari
5   Department of Implantology and Prosthetic Aspects, Master of Science in Dentistry Program, Aldent University, Tirana, Albania
,
Milena Pisano
1   School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding The open access publication of this article has been supported by the School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, FAR 19/20.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The purpose of the present prospective, case-series study was to report implant survival rate and marginal bone remodeling expected 5 years after loading using dental implants placed in daily practice.

Materials and Methods This research was designed as an open-cohort, prospective, case-series evaluation. Any partially or completely edentulous patient, scheduled to receive at least one bone level implant, was considered eligible for this study. Primary outcome measurements were: implant and prosthetic cumulative survival rate and any complications experienced up to the 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were: thickness of gingival biotype, implant insertion torque, implant stability quotient, and marginal bone loss (MBL).

Results Ninety consecutive patients (34 males and 56 females, aged between 24 and 81 years old [mean: 53.2 ± 15.4]) with 243 inserted implants were followed for at least 5 years after loading (mean: 65.4 ± 3.1 months; range from 60 to 72). At the 1-year follow-up, no drop-outs were recorded, but 17 patients (18.9%) with 18 restorations (12.6%) delivered on 34 implants (14%) were lost at the 5-year examination. At the 5-year follow-up examination, six implants lost osseointegration (97.5%). In the same period, four prostheses failed (97.2%). Five complications were reported in five different patients (prosthetic success rate was 96.5%, at patient level). Five years after loading, the mean MBL was 0.41 ± 0.30 mm. The difference from the 1-year data was 0.04 ± 0.19 mm. A statistically significant higher MBL was found for smokers, and patients with thin gingival biotype. The mean implant insertion torque was 42.9 ± 4.8 Ncm (range from 15 to 45 Ncm). Two-hundred and three implants (83.5%) were inserted with an insertion torque ≥35 and ≤45 Ncm.

Conclusions High implant survival and success rate could be expected with stable marginal bone remodeling up to 5 years after loading. Smoking and thin tissue biotype were the most important variabilities associated with higher MBL. Further research studies are needed to confirm these results.

Keywords

sandblasted - acid-etched - connection - marginal bone remodeling - marginal bone loss


Publication History

Article published online:
06 January 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Roos J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Gröndahl K, Albrektsson T. A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Brånemark implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12 (04) 504-514
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1 (01) 11-25
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL. et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17 (01) 5-15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012; 91 (03) 242-248
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Nevins M, Nevins ML, Camelo M, Boyesen JL, Kim DM. Human histologic evidence of a connective tissue attachment to a dental implant. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28 (02) 111-121
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cochran DL, Obrecht M, Weber K. et al. Biologic width adjacent to loaded implants with machined and rough collars in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014; 34 (06) 773-779
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11 (06) 811-818
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, O Valle F, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (04) e28-e34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Alfonsi F, Borgia V, Barbato L. et al. The clinical effects of insertion torque for implants placed in healed ridges: a two-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016; 2 (04) 62-73
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bahat O, Sullivan RM. Parameters for successful implant integration revisited part II: algorithm for immediate loading diagnostic factors. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12 (Suppl. 01) e13-e22
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992; 3 (03) 104-111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Harrel SK, Nunn ME. The effect of occlusal discrepancies on periodontitis. II. Relationship of occlusal treatment to the progression of periodontal disease. J Periodontol 2001; 72 (04) 495-505
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Canullo L, Tallarico M, Radovanovic S, Delibasic B, Covani U, Rakic M. Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (10) 1243-1250
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 American Academy of Periodontology. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a current understanding of their diagnoses and clinical implications. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (04) 436-443
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Tallarico M, Canullo L, Wang HL, Cochran DL, Meloni SM. Classification systems for peri-implantitis: a narrative review with a proposal of a new evidence-based etiology codification. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (04) 871-879
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Open-cohort prospective study on early implant failure and physiological marginal remodeling expected using sandblasted and acid-etched bone level implants featuring an 11° Morse taper connection within one year after loading. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation. 2017; 3: 68-79
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 22-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Sgolastra F, Petrucci A, Severino M, Gatto R, Monaco A. Smoking and the risk of peri-implantitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (04) e62-e67
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Suárez-López Del Amo F, Lin GH, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Influence of soft tissue thickness on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2016; 87 (06) 690-699
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Meloni SM, Jovanovic SA, Urban I, Canullo L, Pisano M, Tallarico M. Horizontal ridge augmentation using GBR with a native collagen membrane and 1:1 ratio of particulated xenograft and autologous bone: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (01) 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tallarico M, Park CJ, Lumbau AI. et al. Customized 3D-printed titanium mesh developed to regenerate a complex bone defect in the aesthetic zone: a case report approached with a fully digital workflow. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (17) 3874
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Meloni SM, Lumbau A, Spano G. et al. Sinus augmentation grafting with anorganic bovine bone versus 50% autologous bone mixed with 50% anorganic bovine bone: 5 years after loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2019; 12 (04) 483-492
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ramanauskaite A, Borges T, Almeida BL, Correia A. Dental implant outcomes in grafted sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019; 10 (03) e8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Engelhardt S, Papacosta P, Rathe F, Özen J, Jansen JA, Junker R. Annual failure rates and marginal bone-level changes of immediate compared to conventional loading of dental implants. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (06) 671-687
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Canullo L, Bignozzi I, Cocchetto R, Cristalli MP, Iannello G. Immediate positioning of a definitive abutment versus repeated abutment replacements in post-extractive implants: 3-year follow-up of a randomised multicentre clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2010; 3 (04) 285-296
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Meloni SM, Tallarico M, Pisano M, Xhanari E, Canullo L. Immediate loading of fixed complete denture prosthesis supported by 4-8 implants placed using guided surgery: a 5-year prospective study on 66 patients with 356 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (01) 195-206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Caneva M, Polizzi G. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing patients rehabilitated with immediately loaded maxillary cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis supported by four or six implants placed using guided surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (05) 965-972
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Meloni SM, De Riu G, Pisano M. et al. Computer-assisted implant surgery and immediate loading in edentulous ridges with dental fresh extraction sockets. Two years results of a prospective case series study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2013; 17 (21) 2968-2973
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Meloni SM, De Riu G, Pisano M, Cattina G, Tullio A. Implant treatment software planning and guided flapless surgery with immediate provisional prosthesis delivery in the fully edentulous maxilla. A retrospective analysis of 15 consecutively treated patients. Eur J Oral Implantology 2010; 3 (03) 245-251
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Immediate loading with a novel implant featured by variable-threaded geometry, internal conical connection and platform shifting: three-year results from a prospective cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (01) 51-63
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Meloni SM, Lumbau A, Baldoni E. et al. Platform switching versus regular platform single implants: 5-year post-loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2020; 13 (01) 43-52
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (01) 135-140
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Rokaya D, Srimaneepong V, Wisitrasameewon W, Humagain M, Thunyakitpisal P. Peri-implantitis update: risk indicators, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (04) 672-682
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Elemek E, Agrali OB, Kuru B, Kuru L. Peri-implantitis and severity level. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (01) 24-30
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Passariello C, Di Nardo D, Testarelli L. Inflammatory periimplant diseases and the periodontal connection question. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (01) 119-123
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Meloni SM, Xhanari E, Covani U, Canullo L. Definitive abutments placed at implant insertion and never removed: is it an effective approach? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76 (02) 316-324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Acampora R, Montanari M, Scrascia R. et al. 1-Year evaluation of ot bridge abutments for immediately loaded maxillary fixed restorations: a multicenter study. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (02) 290-294
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar