4.5 Article

Risk indicators for marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years: A retrospective longitudinal study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 37-45

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0756

关键词

bone resorption; dental implants; epidemiology; longitudinal studies; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMarginal bone stability is considered one of the most important issues in implant dentistry. It is essential to understand how various factors influence bone resorption around implants. The purpose of this retrospective longitudinal study was to identify potential risk indicators associated with marginal bone resorption around implants in function for at least 4 years. MethodsSeveral systemic-related, intraoral-related, implant-related factors were collected. Marginal bone level change (MBLC) was determined by comparing intraoral radiographs taken at baseline (1 year after prosthesis delivery), and at follow-up (over 3 years from baseline). A hierarchical regression analysis using liner mixed-effects models was performed to examine correlations between MBLC and various factors. ResultsOverall, 514 patients with 1535 implants were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 62.9 years. Mean annual MBLC was 0.048 mm, and mean functional time was 5.96 years. The result showed that the following explanatory variables had significant effects on MBLC: functional time, plaque control record > 20%, Eichner index C1-3, maxilla, cement-retained superstructure, and keratinized mucosa width < 2 mm. We did not find statistically significant associations between bone resorption and some variables known as risk factors, such as diabetes, smoking, and history of periodontitis. ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, longer functional time, poor oral hygiene, loss of occlusal support, location in the maxilla, cement-retained superstructure, and less keratinized mucosa should be considered as risk indicators for bone resorption around implants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据