JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 284
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 386-393

Preservation of biological width to avoid marginal bone loss and implant failure - A retrospective study


1 Studio Dentistico Zaniol, Via Lodovico Boschieri, 45/4, 31035 Crocetta del Montello, Treviso, Italy
2 Studio Dentistico Tedesco Giffoni Valle Piana Salerno, Treviso, Italy
3 University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, School of Medicine and Surgery, Naples, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Stefania Palumbo
University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Vico Luigi de Crecchio, 4. 80138, Naples
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_1_22

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To evaluate the medium-term survival and the progression of marginal bone loss by determining the statistical relationship between the explanatory variables for dental implants with internal hexagonal connection in native bone and with guided bone regeneration. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was carried out on a total of 218 implants (143 implants in native bone and 75 implants with guided bone regeneration) placed in 53 patients selected without restrictive inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic variables, including marginal bone loss, were recorded up to 46 months of follow-up. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare annual bone loss and total marginal bone loss. The cumulative survival rate was calculated according to the lifetable method and illustrated with Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the association between study variables and the time to implant failure. Additional factors influencing marginal bone loss were also evaluated. Results: The cumulative survival rates for implants placed in native bone and with guided bone regeneration at 46 months were 97.9% and 97.3%, respectively. In our cohort, the univariate analysis identified marginal bone loss, gingival thickness, and bleeding on probing as risk indicators of implant failure. Moreover, bone loss was correlated with gingival thickness and implant depth. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in survival rates were reported between two types of implants. On the other hand, the correlation of marginal bone to implant insertion depth and gingival thickness, suggests that the biological width measurement should be respected.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed228    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal