Donghyun Kim, Kihyun Kim, Joo-Young Ohe, Seung Jun Song, Janghyun Paek
{"title":"Correlation between implant angulation and crestal bone changes: A 5-year retrospective study.","authors":"Donghyun Kim, Kihyun Kim, Joo-Young Ohe, Seung Jun Song, Janghyun Paek","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.09.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The effects of nonaxial forces on peri-implant bone loss have been investigated, mostly in reference to buccal mesiodistal implant angulations as potential risk indicators. However, when implant angulations are multidirectional, including the buccolingual aspect, evaluations of peri-implant bone loss based solely on mesiodistal measurements may skew the correlation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the correlation between the magnitudes of multidirectional implant angulations and peri-implant crestal bone loss.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Data were retrospectively collected and analyzed from clinical records, periapical radiographic images, and computer-aided design (CAD) files of custom abutments. The study included 288 patients with 506 dental implants, and the mean follow-up duration after the placement of definitive prostheses was 5.1 years. Patients with uncontrolled systemic disease were excluded. Variables such as age, sex, type of unit (single-unit or multi-unit), location (maxillary or mandibular and anterior, premolar, or molar), and antagonist (natural tooth, implant-supported prosthesis, or removable prosthesis) were evaluated. The angulation of the implant (mesiodistal and buccolingual) and status of attrition (normal, localized, or generalized) were assessed using the CAD file. The angulation of the implant was then derived from the mesiodistal and buccolingual angle measurements by using a mathematical formula. Peri-implant bone loss was measured from periapical radiographs. A comparison of peri-implant bone loss between axial and nonaxial implants was performed using the Student t test (α=.05). Additional comparative evaluations were performed according to the type of unit, location, antagonist, and status of attrition in reference to the angulation categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ±standard deviation peri-implant bone loss over 5 years was 0.10 ±0.39 mm in the axial implants and 0.22 ±0.48 mm in the nonaxial implants. Statistical analysis showed that nonaxial implants had a significantly greater bone loss (P<.05), which was more pronounced when the antagonists were implant-supported prostheses (P<.05) and when the implants were located in the mandible (P<.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A significant correlation was observed between implant angulation and peri-implant bone loss. Nonaxially positioned implants exhibited greater bone loss compared with axially positioned implants. Additionally, the location of the implant and the type of antagonist were found to influence the extent of bone loss. These findings suggest that careful consideration of implant angulation, as well as the position and type of antagonist, is crucial in minimizing peri-implant bone loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.09.015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Statement of problem: The effects of nonaxial forces on peri-implant bone loss have been investigated, mostly in reference to buccal mesiodistal implant angulations as potential risk indicators. However, when implant angulations are multidirectional, including the buccolingual aspect, evaluations of peri-implant bone loss based solely on mesiodistal measurements may skew the correlation.
Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the correlation between the magnitudes of multidirectional implant angulations and peri-implant crestal bone loss.
Material and methods: Data were retrospectively collected and analyzed from clinical records, periapical radiographic images, and computer-aided design (CAD) files of custom abutments. The study included 288 patients with 506 dental implants, and the mean follow-up duration after the placement of definitive prostheses was 5.1 years. Patients with uncontrolled systemic disease were excluded. Variables such as age, sex, type of unit (single-unit or multi-unit), location (maxillary or mandibular and anterior, premolar, or molar), and antagonist (natural tooth, implant-supported prosthesis, or removable prosthesis) were evaluated. The angulation of the implant (mesiodistal and buccolingual) and status of attrition (normal, localized, or generalized) were assessed using the CAD file. The angulation of the implant was then derived from the mesiodistal and buccolingual angle measurements by using a mathematical formula. Peri-implant bone loss was measured from periapical radiographs. A comparison of peri-implant bone loss between axial and nonaxial implants was performed using the Student t test (α=.05). Additional comparative evaluations were performed according to the type of unit, location, antagonist, and status of attrition in reference to the angulation categories.
Results: The mean ±standard deviation peri-implant bone loss over 5 years was 0.10 ±0.39 mm in the axial implants and 0.22 ±0.48 mm in the nonaxial implants. Statistical analysis showed that nonaxial implants had a significantly greater bone loss (P<.05), which was more pronounced when the antagonists were implant-supported prostheses (P<.05) and when the implants were located in the mandible (P<.05).
Conclusions: A significant correlation was observed between implant angulation and peri-implant bone loss. Nonaxially positioned implants exhibited greater bone loss compared with axially positioned implants. Additionally, the location of the implant and the type of antagonist were found to influence the extent of bone loss. These findings suggest that careful consideration of implant angulation, as well as the position and type of antagonist, is crucial in minimizing peri-implant bone loss.
问题陈述:非轴向力对种植体周围骨质流失的影响已经进行了研究,主要是将颊中线种植体角度作为潜在的风险指标。目的:这项回顾性研究的目的是评估多方向种植体角度的大小与种植体周围骨质流失之间的相关性:从临床记录、根尖周放射影像和定制基台的计算机辅助设计(CAD)文件中回顾性地收集和分析数据。研究共纳入了288名患者,共植入506颗牙科植入体,植入最终修复体后的平均随访时间为5.1年。未控制的全身性疾病患者被排除在外。评估的变量包括年龄、性别、单元类型(单单元或多单元)、位置(上颌或下颌、前磨牙或臼齿)和拮抗剂(天然牙、种植体支持的修复体或活动修复体)。使用 CAD 文件评估种植体的角度(中径和颊舌向)和损耗状态(正常、局部或全身)。然后通过数学公式,根据测量的牙周中线和颊舌侧角度得出种植体的角度。根据根尖周X光片测量种植体周围的骨质流失情况。轴向种植体和非轴向种植体的种植体周围骨质流失比较采用学生 t 检验(α=.05)。此外,还根据种植体的类型、位置、拮抗剂以及参照角度类别的损耗状况进行了比较评估:5年中,轴向种植体种植体周围骨质流失的平均值(±标准偏差)为0.10±0.39毫米,非轴向种植体种植体周围骨质流失的平均值(±标准偏差)为0.22±0.48毫米。统计分析表明,非轴向种植体的骨量损失明显更大(PConclusions:种植体角度与种植体周围骨质流失之间存在明显的相关性。与轴向定位的种植体相比,非轴向定位的种植体骨质流失更严重。此外,种植体的位置和拮抗剂的类型也会影响骨质流失的程度。这些研究结果表明,仔细考虑种植体的角度以及拮抗剂的位置和类型对于最大限度地减少种植体周围骨质流失至关重要。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.