Maintenance requirements and marginal bone loss associated with implant-retained overdentures: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the maintenance requirements and the presence of prosthetic complications associated with marginal bone loss in the implant-retained bar and locator prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was executed between the years 2013 and 2018 on 114 patients who had undergone 283 dental implants. Patients were examined at follow-up recall sessions at 12 and 24 months after the placement of the dentures. The clinical examination also included intraoral and extraoral examinations of the patients; compatibility of the prostheses placed to about occlusion; an adaptation of the prosthesis to the tissues, health, and continuity of the soft tissues; complaints of the patients; implant success rates; and marginal bone loss, and prosthetic complications were evaluated at follow-up sessions, and statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Locator attachment was placed in 94 patients with separated mandibles and maxillae, and a removable prosthesis with a bar attachment was placed in 20 patients. When evaluating the level of marginal bone loss regardless of the presence of complications, the area where the implant was set, the number of days after loading, and the type of retainer, it was found to be significant at the end of the 12th the 24th months. The results showed a significant relationship between the prosthesis type and the presence of complications at month 24 (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship between the position of the denture and the presence of complications at month 12 (p > 0.05). There was no significant relationship between the location of the denture and the presence of complications at month 24 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Complications do not affect marginal bone loss, but the resulting marginal bone loss is the result of the patient not paying enough attention to oral hygiene. Routine inspections of the prosthesis after the completion of treatment seem to be important. If the requirements resulting from these checks are met, complications that may occur in the future will be prevented. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The maintenance requirements and the presence of prosthetic complications associated with marginal bone loss in the implant-retained bar and locator prostheses were evaluated. Complications occurred more frequently with the bar-supported removable implant prostheses.

Comparison of the Crestal Bone Loss Between Implant-Supported Prosthesis With Sinus Augmentation and Distal Cantilevered Implant-Supported Prosthesis Without Sinus Augmentation.

This study aimed to compare the crestal bone loss between a 2-implant-supported, noncantilevered 3-unit fixed partial prosthesis (TUFPP) with sinus augmentation and a 2-implant-supported, distal cantilevered TUFPP without sinus augmentation in the posterior maxilla having insufficient crestal bone. The study subjects were enrolled in 2 groups. Group 1 included patients with 2 implants: an anterior implant placed in the native bone and a posterior implant inserted with simultaneous sinus augmentation using a xenogenic bone graft to support a TUFPP. Group 2 included patients with 2 implants inserted in the native bone to support a distal cantilevered TUFPP. The crestal bone levels at the distal and mesial aspects of each implant were measured at baseline and 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up controls on panoramic radiographs. Fifty-two patients and 104 implants were included. There was a significant difference in distal crestal bone loss between anterior and posterior implants in group 1 at 6 months (P < .05) but not at 12 and 24 months (P > .05). Distal crestal bone loss was significantly increased in group 1 posterior implants compared to the group 2 posterior implants at 6 months (P < .05). There was no significant difference in mesial bone loss between the anterior and posterior implants in both groups at all follow-up controls (P > .05). There was also no significant mesial crestal bone loss in relation to the anterior and posterior implants of both groups at all follow-up controls (P > .05). Noncantilevered 2-implant-supported TUFPP with sinus augmentation may have similar medium-term crestal bone loss when compared to cantilevered 2-implant-supported TUFPP without sinus augmentation. Further prospective studies should be designed to compare the performance of the 2-implant-supported cantilevered TUFPP and 2-implant-supported TUFPP with sinus augmentation.

Effects of implant-related variables on the marginal bone loss around dental implants.

OBJECTIVE: Marginal bone loss (MBL), a prognostic parameter for implant success, is associated with implant- and patient-related variables. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of the crown-to-implant ratio and independent factors of implant diameter, implant length, implant type, location, and platform switching on distal and mesial MBLs at the 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month recall sessions of single crown implant-supported restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Radiographic and clinical data of patients treated with single crown implants were collected. MBL was measured at the baseline and recall sessions on panoramic radiographs. The crown-to-implant ratio was calculated by dividing the length of the crown by that of the dental implant. RESULTS: The crown-to-implant ratio had a moderately positive correlation with distal MBL at the 6-month recall session (P < .05, r = 0.469) and a weakly positive correlation at the 12- (P < .05, r = 0.220), 24- (P < .05, r = 0.214), and 36- (P < .05, r = 0.250) month recall sessions. Distal and mesial MBL did not significantly differ among the four implant types at any recall session (P > .05). The crown-to-implant ratio had no significant correlation with mesial MBL at the 12-, 24-, or 36-month recall session (P > .05), and a moderately positive correlation at the 6-month recall session (P < .001, r = 0.434). CONCLUSIONS: MBL was similar among different implant types in the short and medium terms. There was a positive correlation between distal MBL and the crown-to-implant ratio.