Retrospective Radiographic Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Mandibular Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Diagnostics Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14212404

Francesco Giordano, Alfonso Acerra, Roberta Gasparro, Marzio Galdi, Francesco D'Ambrosio, Mario Caggiano

{"title":"Retrospective Radiographic Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Mandibular Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations.","authors":"Francesco Giordano, Alfonso Acerra, Roberta Gasparro, Marzio Galdi, Francesco D'Ambrosio, Mario Caggiano","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Can the type of implant rehabilitation influence peri-implant bone loss in case of full-arch mandibular prosthesis? The purpose of the study was to assess, using orthopantomograms (OPGs), the bone loss around implants in different types of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations and identify potential risk factors, associated with the number and location of implants, that may have an association with bone defects.Methods: A radiographic study was conducted on 22,317 OPGs from 2010 to 2024. All OPGs with implant-supported prosthetic mandibular rehabilitations were included in the study.Results: A total of 155 OPGs were evaluated, with peri-implant bone loss identified in 64 (41.3%). Distal implants (furthest from the center) across various positioning patterns were most susceptible to bone loss, with positions 3.6 and 4.6 demonstrating the most frequent occurrence (25 and 26 cases, respectively). The χ2 test revealed significant associations between both the implant positioning pattern (p < 0.001) and number of implants (p < 0.001) with peri-implant bone loss. Also, by updating the sample of OPGs, increased susceptibility to bone resorption was found for implants placed distal to the mental foramen compared to mesial ones in full-arch-implant-supported fixed prostheses.Conclusions: Prospective clinical studies will therefore be useful in investigating this finding further.","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Can the type of implant rehabilitation influence peri-implant bone loss in case of full-arch mandibular prosthesis? The purpose of the study was to assess, using orthopantomograms (OPGs), the bone loss around implants in different types of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations and identify potential risk factors, associated with the number and location of implants, that may have an association with bone defects.

Methods: A radiographic study was conducted on 22,317 OPGs from 2010 to 2024. All OPGs with implant-supported prosthetic mandibular rehabilitations were included in the study.

Results: A total of 155 OPGs were evaluated, with peri-implant bone loss identified in 64 (41.3%). Distal implants (furthest from the center) across various positioning patterns were most susceptible to bone loss, with positions 3.6 and 4.6 demonstrating the most frequent occurrence (25 and 26 cases, respectively). The χ² test revealed significant associations between both the implant positioning pattern (p < 0.001) and number of implants (p < 0.001) with peri-implant bone loss. Also, by updating the sample of OPGs, increased susceptibility to bone resorption was found for implants placed distal to the mental foramen compared to mesial ones in full-arch-implant-supported fixed prostheses.

Conclusions: Prospective clinical studies will therefore be useful in investigating this finding further.

查看原文本刊更多论文

下颌全髋关节种植修复术后种植体周围骨质流失的回顾性影像学分析

研究目的种植体修复的类型是否会影响全拱下颌修复体的种植体周围骨质流失？本研究的目的是使用正位片（OPG）评估不同类型种植体支持修复的种植体周围骨质流失情况，并确定与种植体数量和位置相关的、可能与骨质缺损有关的潜在风险因素：2010年至2024年期间，对22317颗OPG进行了放射学研究。结果：共有 155 个 OPG 接受了种植体支持的下颌骨修复：共评估了155颗OPG，发现64颗（41.3%）种植体周围骨质流失。在各种定位模式中，远端种植体（距离中心最远）最容易出现骨质流失，其中3.6和4.6位置的种植体最容易出现骨质流失（分别为25和26例）。χ2检验显示，种植体定位模式（p < 0.001）和种植体数量（p < 0.001）与种植体周围骨质流失之间存在显著的相关性。此外，通过更新 OPGs 样本，还发现在全牙弓种植体支持的固定修复体中，种植体放置在种植孔远端比种植体放置在种植孔中段更容易发生骨吸收：因此，前瞻性临床研究将有助于进一步研究这一发现。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

8.30%

发文量

2699

审稿时长

19.64 days

期刊介绍： Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.