Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss and Peri-Implant Tissue Conditions in Relation to Dental Implant Surface Design: A 12-Month Retrospective Study

Abstract

Aim: This retrospective study aims to evaluate marginal bone loss and peri-implant tissue conditions in relation to implant surface design. Material and Method: In our study, data from 50 dental implants placed in patients who underwent routine treatment at the Harran University Faculty of Dentistry Application and Research Center were evaluated. Data obtained for bone loss, gingival and plaque indices were evaluated. Two types of implants were compared based on these data. Type 1 implants feature an HSA (Hybrid Sand Blast and Acid Etched) surface designed to promote osseointegration, whereas Type 2 implants are composed of high-quality titanium alloy and incorporate AB/AE (Acid Etch with Aluminum Oxide Blasting) surface modifications to support osseointegration. The normality of data distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Comparisons between groups were made using the Mann-Whitney U test, as it is appropriate for data that does not show normal distribution. Results: Type 2 implants showed significantly higher gingival index values (p<0.05), while no significant differences were observed in plaque index or bone loss between groups. Conclusion: Implant neck and surface design may influence soft tissue response, particularly gingival inflammation, highlighting the importance of implant morphology in peri-implant tissue health and long-term outcomes.

Keywords

• Dental implant
• bone loss
• gingival index
• plaque index

Kaynakça

1. Hong DGK, Oh JH. Recent advances in dental implants. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;39:33.
2. Shemtov-Yona K, Rittel D. An overview of the mechanical integrity of dental implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:547384.
3. McCracken M. Dental implant materials: commercially pure titanium and titanium alloys. J Prosthodont. 1999;8:40-3.
4. Liu X, Chen S, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP. Binary titanium alloys as dental implant materials—a review. Regen Biomater. 2017;4:315-23.
5. Zhang L, Chen LY. A review on biomedical titanium alloys: recent progress and prospect. Advanced Engineering Materials. 2019;21:1801215.
6. Duong HY, Roccuzzso A, Stahli A, et al. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88:201-37.
7. Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL. Is history of periodontal disease still a negative risk indicator for peri-implant health under supportive post-implant treatment coverage? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35:52-62.
8. Roccuzzo A, Imber JC, Salvi GE, Roccuzzo M. Peri‐implantitis as the consequence of errors in implant therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2023;92:350-61.

9. Romandini M, Lima C, Pedrinaci I, et al. Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri‐implant diseases: a university‐representative cross‐sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32:100-11.
10. Ravidà A, Galli M, Siqueira R, et al. Diagnosis of peri‐implant status after peri‐implantitis surgical treatment: proposal of a new classification. J Periodontol. 2020;91:1553-61.
11. Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:246-66.
12. Amerio E, Mainas G, Petrova D, et al. Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47:81-100.
13. Eke PI, Dye BA, Wei L, et al. Self-reported measures for surveillance of periodontitis. J Dent Res. 2013;92:1041-7.
14. Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, et al. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater. 2018;34:40-57.
15. Silness J, Löe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964;22:121-35.
16. Löe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. prevalence and severity. J Periodontol. 1963;32:612-7.
17. Coli P, Jemt T. On marginal bone level changes around dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23:159-69.
18. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. A retrospective study on clinical and radiological outcomes of oral implants in patients followed up for a minimum of 20 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:199-207.
19. Fransson C, Tomasi C, Pikner SS, et al. Severity and pattern of peri‐implantitis‐associated bone loss. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37:442-8.
20. Schou S, Holmstrup P, Worthington HV, Esposito M. Outcome of implant therapy in patients with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:104-23.
21. Hugoson A, Laurell L. A prospective longitudinal study on periodontal bone height changes in a Swedish population. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27:665-74.
22. Carlsson GE, Bergman B, Hedegård B. Changes in contour of the maxillary alveolar process under immediate dentures. A longitudinal clinical and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. Acta Odontol Scand. 1967;25:45-75.
23. Hussein A, Shah M, Atieh MA, et al. Influence of implant surfaces on peri-implant diseases - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Dent J. 2025;75:75-85.