The Influence of Patient-, Site-, and Implant-Related Factors on Marginal Bone Levels of Dental Implants in a Rural Population in China: A Retrospective Study

Objectives

Limited research is available on implant treatment outcomes in rural populations. This may be due to the presence of various barriers, such as access to oral health care, resources, health literacy, and education. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of patient-, site-, and implant-related factors on marginal bone levels of dental implants in a rural population in China.

Material and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using data from a private dental office. Subjects included in this study received dental implants as part of their routine dental treatment. Information on age, gender, smoking status, diabetes, heart disease, jaw location, restorative type, loading protocol, survival rate, implant length, and diameter was collected. Marginal bone loss was recorded as the largest value at either the mesial or distal aspect on peri-apical radiographs. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed along with linear regression analysis.

Results

Overall, 428 implants were placed in 90 subjects over an average follow-up period of 453 days. No implant failures were recorded. The average marginal bone loss was 0.10 mm, with 80.6% of implants showing no marginal bone loss. The extent of marginal bone loss was greater in the mandible (0.13 ± 0.25) than in the maxilla (0.08 ± 0.19). An increase in implant diameter by 1 mm resulted in 0.08 mm of marginal bone loss, indicating wider diameter implants are associated with more bone loss. Age was also positively correlated with marginal bone loss, increasing by 0.002 mm per year. No differences were found for gender, smoking, diabetes, heart disease, restoration type, and immediate loading.

Conclusions

Dental implant therapy in a rural Chinese population demonstrated high survival rates and minimal marginal bone loss. Factors such as age, implant location, and diameter influenced bone loss. This study fills a critical gap in understanding implant outcomes specifically within rural settings, highlighting the need for tailored approaches to enhance patient access and care in these communities. Further research is needed to explore these relationships and assess implant outcomes in rural populations.