COMPARISON OF MARGINAL BONE LOSS IN CONICAL, CYLINDRICAL, AND PASSIVELY INSERTED PRESS-FIT DENTAL IMPLANTS DURING THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF OSSEOINTEGRATION

Year 2025, Volume: 49 Issue: 1, 19 - 25, 24.04.2025

Onur Koç Çiğdem Karaca

https://izlik.org/JA55AE66EM

Abstract

Background and Aim: This study investigated the effects of
implant macrodesign on early marginal bone loss (MBL), a key
predictor of implant longevity.
Materials and Methods: The MBL values of Bego Semandos®
(Group I: conical), Straumann BL® – SLA modified surface (Group
II: cylindrical), and I-System (Group III: press-fit) implants were
measured on postoperative 3 months cone beam computed
tomographic images at 6 points of each implant. The “total
MBL” for each implant was calculated by averaging MBL at 6
points. The buccal and lingual MBL values were determined by
averaging the measurements at 3 points on each side.
Results: A total of 57 implants were analyzed. No significant
differences were observed in the average total MBL values
between groups (p>0.05). The cylindrical implants showed
significantly higher buccal MBL (0.30 ± 0.22 mm) than lingual
MBL (0.17 ± 0.37 mm) (p=0.048). The conical and cylindrical
implants exhibited insignificantly higher total MBL in the
maxilla and mandible, respectively (p>0.05). Conical implants
had an insignificantly higher total MBL in the anterior region
than that in the posterior region (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Cylindrical implants may be avoided in alveolar
crests with higher buccal resorption, to prevent early buccal
MBL. Cylindrical and conical implant placements should be
preferred in the maxilla and mandible, respectively, with proper
countersinking. Cylindrical implants may minimize the early MBL
in the anterior region. Although implant macrodesigns do not
significantly differ in average total MBL levels, passive pressfit
implants may ensure more homogeneous early MBL across
both jaws and regions.

Keywords

Bone Resorption , Dental Implant , Macrodesign , Marginal Bone Loss , Osseointegration.

Ethical Statement

The present study was approved by the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University (approval no: 2024/14–28).

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

• Reference1. Degidi M, Perrotti V, Strocchi R, Piattelli A, Iezzi G. Is insertion torque correlated to bone-implant contact percentage in the early healing period? A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of 17 human-retrieved dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 778-781.
• Reference2. Di Domênico MB, Farias Collares K, Bergoli CD, dos Santos MBF, Corazza PH, Özcan M. Factors Related to Early Marginal Bone Loss in Dental Implants—A Multicentre Observational Clinical Study. Appl Sci 2021; 11: 11197.
• Reference3. Cassetta M, Pranno N, Calasso S, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M. Early peri-implant bone loss: a prospective cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44: 1138-1145.
• Reference4. Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, Perez-Sayans M, Fernandez-Barbero JE, O’Valle F, Padial-Molina M. Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2022; 24: 630-642.
• Reference5. Heriveaux Y, Le Cann S, Fraulob M, Vennat E, Nguyen VH, Haiat G. Mechanical micromodeling of stress-shielding at the bone-implant interphase under shear loading. Med Biol Eng Comput 2022; 60: 3281-3293.
• Reference6. Rossi F, Botticelli D, Cesaretti G, De Santis E, Storelli S, Lang NP. Use of short implants (6 mm) in a single-tooth replacement: a 5-year follow-up prospective randomized controlled multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 458-464.
• Reference7. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakano T, Yatani H. Marginal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants Inserted with Static Computer Assistance in Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31: 761-775.
• Reference8. Krawiec M, Olchowy C, Kubasiewicz-Ross P, Hadzik J, Dominiak M. Role of implant loading time in the prevention of marginal bone loss after implant-supported restorations: A targeted review. Dent Med Probl 2022; 59: 475-481.
• Reference9. Young-Chul JC-H, Han. Keun-Woo, Lee. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 811-818.
• Reference10. Su YH, Peng BY, Wang PD, Feng SW. Evaluation of the implant stability and the marginal bone level changes during the first three months of dental implant healing process: A prospective clinical study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 110: 103899.
• Reference11. Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Lindhe J. A prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial to evaluate bone preservation using implants with different geometry placed into extraction sockets in the maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 13-21.
• Reference12. Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Tu MG, Li YF, Chen KT, Huang HL. The effects of cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone strength on noninvasive measures of the implant primary stability using synthetic bone models. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15: 251- 261.
• Reference13. Aizcorbe-Vicente J, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Canullo L, Soto- Penaloza D, Penarrocha-Diago M. Influence of Facial Bone Thickness After Implant Placement into the Healed Ridges on the Remodeled Facial Bone and Considering Soft Tissue Recession: A Systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35: 107- 119.
• Reference14. Katranji A, Misch K, Wang HL. Cortical bone thickness in dentate and edentulous human cadavers. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 874-878.
• Reference15. Block MS, Christensen BJ. Porous Bone Increases the Risk of Posterior Mandibular Implant Failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79: 1459-1466.
• Reference16. Simons WF, De Smit M, Duyck J, Coucke W, Quirynen M. The proportion of cancellous bone as predictive factor for early marginal bone loss around implants in the posterior part of the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 1051-1059.
• Reference17. Kozakiewicz M, Skorupska M, Wach T. What Does Bone Corticalization around Dental Implants Mean in Light of Ten Years of Follow-Up? J Clin Med 2022; 11: 3545.
• Reference18. Di Stefano DA, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Orlando F, Arosio P. Cortical Thickness, Bone Density, and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral: A Study Using Polyurethane Foam Blocks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 36: 423-431.
• Reference19. Gehrke SA, Junior JA, Treichel TLE, do Prado TD, Dedavid BA, de Aza PN. Effects of insertion torque values on the marginal bone loss of dental implants installed in sheep mandibles. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 538.
• Reference20. Oskouei AB, Golkar M, Badkoobeh A, Jahri M, Sadeghi HMM, Mohammadikhah M et al. Investigating the effect of insertion torque on marginal bone loss around dental implants. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023; 124: 101523.
• Reference21. Keskinruzgar A, Kucuk A. Evaluation of bone resorption after implant surgery: Analysis of short-term follow-up. Ann Med Res 2019; 26: 438-442.
• Reference22. Banu RF, Kumar VA. Early Implant Bone Loss in the Preprosthetic Phase: A Retrospective Study. J Oral Implantol 2023; 49: 355-360.
• Reference23. Kim HJ, Yu SK, Lee MH, Lee HJ, Kim HJ, Chung CH. Cortical and cancellous bone thickness on the anterior region of alveolar bone in Korean: a study of dentate human cadavers. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4: 146-152.
• Reference24. Vasegh Z, Safi Y, Amid R, Ahsaie MG, Amiri MJ, Minooei Z. Quantitative Evaluation of Bone-Related Factors at the Implant Site by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2022; 32: 33-43.
• Reference25. Wang SH, Shen YW, Fuh LJ, Peng SL, Tsai MT, Huang HL et al. Relationship between Cortical Bone Thickness and Cancellous Bone Density at Dental Implant Sites in the Jawbone. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10: 710.
• Reference26. Radaelli MTB, Federizzi L, Nascimento GG, Leite FRM, Boscato N. Early-predictors of marginal bone loss around morse taper connection implants loaded with single crowns: A prospective longitudinal study. J Periodontal Res 2020; 55: 174-181.
• Reference27. Zaarour J, Chrabieh E, Rameh S, Khoury A, Younes R. Effect of the Implant Macro-Design on Primary Stability: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int Arab J Dent 2022; 13: 7-15.
• Reference28. Markose J, Eshwar S, Srinivas S, Jain V. Clinical outcomes of ultrashort sloping shoulder implant design: A survival analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018; 20: 646-652.
• Reference29. Huang B, Meng H, Zhu W, Witek L, Tovar N, Coelho PG. Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implants: a histologic study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 942-949.
• Reference30. Urdaneta RA, Marincola M, Weed M, Chuang SK. A screwless and cementless technique for the restoration of single-tooth implants: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 562-571.