Clinical oral implants research · 2024
Factors affecting radiographic marginal bone resorption at dental implants in function for at least 5 years: A multicenter retrospective study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trombelli Leonardo, Farina Roberto, Tomasi Cristiano, Vignoletti Fabio, Paolantoni Guerino, Giordano Francesco, Ortensi Luca, Simonelli Anna
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of patient and implant-related factors on the changes of marginal bone levels (MBL) at implants with a follow-up ≥5 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: At baseline (within 6 months from prosthetic insertion) and long-term (≥5 years after implant placement) visits, interproximal (mesial and distal) MBL were radiographically evaluated. To analyze factors predicting MBL change, the site (either mesial or distal) showing the highest MBL change (hChMBL site) was identified for each implant. Multilevel regression models were built to explain MBL change as well as the probability for a bone loss ≥2 mm at long-term.
RESULTS: 942 implants in 312 patients with a mean follow-up of 8.02 ± 2.5 years were analyzed. MBL change was significantly predicted by baseline MBL, oral bisphosphonate (BP) intake, history of periodontitis, diabetes, and super-hydrophilic implant surface. Higher risk for a bone loss ≥2 mm was observed in patients with history of periodontitis (OR = 9.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.79) and taking BP (OR = 6.84, 95% CI 0.21-3.63). Mandibular implants had higher odds for bone loss ≥2 mm compared to maxillary implants (OR = 3, 95% CI 0.39-1.87).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study contribute to the identification of specific clinical scenarios at higher risk for implant-supporting bone loss that need to be strictly monitored during maintenance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: At baseline (within 6 months from prosthetic insertion) and long-term (≥5 years after implant placement) visits, interproximal (mesial and distal) MBL were radiographically evaluated. To analyze factors predicting MBL change, the site (either mesial or distal) showing the highest MBL change (hChMBL site) was identified for each implant. Multilevel regression models were built to explain MBL change as well as the probability for a bone loss ≥2 mm at long-term.
RESULTS: 942 implants in 312 patients with a mean follow-up of 8.02 ± 2.5 years were analyzed. MBL change was significantly predicted by baseline MBL, oral bisphosphonate (BP) intake, history of periodontitis, diabetes, and super-hydrophilic implant surface. Higher risk for a bone loss ≥2 mm was observed in patients with history of periodontitis (OR = 9.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.79) and taking BP (OR = 6.84, 95% CI 0.21-3.63). Mandibular implants had higher odds for bone loss ≥2 mm compared to maxillary implants (OR = 3, 95% CI 0.39-1.87).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study contribute to the identification of specific clinical scenarios at higher risk for implant-supporting bone loss that need to be strictly monitored during maintenance.