RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF REDUCTION OF PERI-IMPLANT BONE TISSUE DURING IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED DENTAL IMPLANTATION PROTOCOLS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2523-420X/2023.2.5Keywords:
reduction level, periimplant bone tissue, dental implantation protocol, implant survival.Abstract
The article presents a comparative analysis of the periimplant bone tissue level reduction indicator in parallel with the study of the success and survival levels of implants installed according to the protocols of immediate, early and delayed implantation with the search for possible statistical or trend associations between the studied parameters described in the preselected pool of scientific works. The purpose of the study is to analyze the differences in the change in periimplant bone tissue reduction indicators under the conditions of implementation of immediate and delayed implantation protocols, as criteria for its prognosis and assessment of success in the process of remote monitoring. Research materials and methods. The search for relevant scientific publications was carried out using the Google Academy search engine, ensuring the ranking of the obtained results according to the criteria of research depth, the completeness of the correspondence of keywords to the title and content of the abstracts of publications, as well as the number of citations in the structure of previously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The grouping of the results and the assessment of the level and significance of statistical dependencies between the separated parameters of the study were carried out in the Microsoft Excel 2019 table editor software (Microsoft Office 2019). Research results and their discussion. The level of bone tissue reduction in the peri-implant area is one of the determining criteria for the success of installed dental implants in the immediate and remote periods of monitoring, which were previously proposed by many domestic and foreign authors. Existing methods of registering the decrease in the vertical parameters of the bone ridge adjacent to the surface of installed titanium intraosseous supports provide opportunities not only for the numerical calculation of the difference in indicators at different periods of observation, but also for their quantification in the form of calculating the volume loss of bone, its circular reduction, visualization of the geometry of existing saucer-like defects. The value of the index of loss of bone tissue in the periimplant area as a criterion for the success of implantation also increases in cases of complex interpretation of its changes with a number of other studied parameters, such as the cumulative index of survival and success of implants, the relative risk of various forms of complications, statistical associations with potentially determining factors of influence. It is the complex approach to the interpretation of the registered differences between the indicators of the reduction of the level of periimplant bone tissue in the cases of implementation of the protocols of immediate and delayed implantation with the search for possible associations between this criterion and a number of potentially influential factors that ensured the detailed analysis of previously published data. Conclusions. As a result of a detailed analysis, it was possible to establish that the data of previously conducted studies devoted to the comparison of clinical criteria for the effectiveness of the implementation of immediate and other protocols of dental implantation do not allow formulating an unequivocal conclusion regarding the pronounced difference of the investigated indicators during different periods of observation.
References
Guidetti, L., Monnazzi, M., Piveta, A., Gabrielli, M., Gabrielli, M. & Filho, V.P. (2015). Evaluation of single implants placed in the posterior mandibular area under immediate loading: A prospective study. Int. J. Oral Surg. No. 44. P. 1411–1415.
Engelhardt, S., Papacosta, P., Rathe, F., Özen, J., Jansen, J.A. & Junker, R. (2015). Annual failure rates and marginal bone-level changes of immediate compared to conventional loading of dental implants. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. No. 26. P. 671–687.
Giacomel, M., Camati, P., Souza, J. & Deliberador, T. (2017). Comparison of Marginal Bone Level Changes of Immediately Loaded Implants, Delayed Loaded Nonsubmerged Implants, and Delayed Loaded Submerged Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Oral Implant. No. 32. P. 661–666.
Joda, T. & Brägger, U. (2016). Time-efficientcy analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in digital workflow: A randomized control trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. No. 27. P. 1401–1416.
Zheng, Z., Ao, X., Xie, P., Jiang, F., & Chen, W. (2021). The biological width around implant. J Prosthodont Res. No. 65(1). P. 11–8.
Buser, D., Chappuis, V., Belser, U. C. & Chen, S. (2017). Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontology 2000. No. 73(1). P. 84–102.
Walters, W.H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Portal: Libraries and the Academy. No. 9(1). P. 5–24.
Beel, J., Gipp, B. & Wilde, E. (2009). Academic Search Engine Optimization (aseo) Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar & Co. Journal of scholarly publishing. No. 41(2). P. 176–190.
Schuster, A.J., Marcello-Machado, R.M., Bielemann, A.M & et al. (2020). Immediate vs conventional loading of Facility-Equator system in mandibular overdenture wearers: 1-year RCT with clinical, biological, and functional evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. No. 22. P. 270–280.
Sanda, M., Fueki, K., Bari, P.R. & et al. (2019). Comparison of immediate and conventional loading protocols with respect to marginal bone loss around implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Sci Rev. No. 55. P. 20–25. 11. Bassir, S.H., El, Kholy, K., Chen, C.Y. & et al. (2019). Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. No. 90. P. 493–506.
Karthik, K., & Thangaswamy, V. (2013). Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J of Pharmacy and Bio Allied Sciences. No. 5(5). P. 117.
Villarinho, E.A., Correia, A., Vigo, A., Ramos, N.V., Vaz, M.A.P., Shinkai, R.S.A. & Arai Shinkai, R.S. (2018). Volumetric Bone Measurement Around Dental Implants Using 3D Image Superimposition: A Methodological and Clinical Pilot Study. International Journal of Prosthodontics. No. 31(1).
Naveau, A., Shinmyouzu, K., Moore, C., Avivi- Arber, L., Jokerst, J. & Koka, S. (2019). Etiology and Measurement of Peri-Implant Crestal Bone Loss (CBL). Journal of clinical medicine. No. 8(2). P. 166.
Goncharuk-Khomyn, M. & Andrii, K. (2018). Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Reduction Levels from Superimposition Perspective: Pilot Study among Ukrainian Implantology Practice. Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada. No. 18(1). P. 3856.
Ritter, L., Elger, M. C., Rothamel, D., Fienitz, T., Zinser, M., Schwarz, F. & Zöller, J. E. (2014). Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. No. 43(6). P. 20130088.
Honcharuk-Khomyn, M.Yu., Kenyuk, A.T., Foros, A.I., Tsuperyak, S.S., Havryleshko, K.I., & Moshak, Yu.V. (2017). Vyznachennja rivnja redukcii' kistkovoi' tkanyny v peryimplantatnij oblasti z vykorystannja eksperymental'nogo pryncypu superimpozycii – [Determination of the level of bone reduction in the peri-implant region using the experimental principle of superimposition]. Molodyj vchenyj ‒ Young scientist. No. 12(52). P. 48–51. [in Ukrainian]
Rusyn, V. & Goncharuk-Khomyn, M. (2016). Alternative approach for the registration of peri-implant bone level changes at the remote rehabilitation period. Morphologia. No. 10(2). P. 77–84.
Borges, G.A., Costa, R.C., Nagay, B.E. & et al. (2021). Long-term outcomes of different loading protocols for implant-supported mandibular overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. No. 125. P. 732–745.
Cheng, Q., Su, Y.Y., Wang, X. & et al. Clinical Outcomes Following Immediate Loading of Single-Tooth Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. No. 35(1). P. 167–177. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7548
Mello, C.C., Lemos, C.A.A., Verri, F.R., Dos Santos, D.M., Goiato, M.C. & Pellizzer, E.P. (2017). Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. No. 46(9). P. 1162–1177.
Lemos, C.A., Ferro-Alves, M.L., Okamoto, R., Mendonça, M.R. & Pellizzer, E.P. (2016). Short dental implants versus standard dental implants placed in the posterior jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. No. 47. P. 8–17.
Lee, S.A., Lee, C.T., Fu, M.M., Elmisalati, W. & Chuang, S.K. (2014). Systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. No. 29(5). P. 1085–1097.
Lee, C.T., Chiu, T.S., Chuang, S.K., Tarnow, D. & Stoupel, J. (2014). Alterations of the bone dimension following immediate implant placement into extraction socket: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of clinical periodontology. No. 41(9). P. 914–926.
Tonetti, M.S., Cortellini, P., Graziani, F., Cairo, F., Lang, N.P., Abundo, R. & Wallkamm, B. (2017). Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of clinical periodontology. No. 44(2). P. 215–224.
Hof, M., Pommer, B., Ambros, H., Jesch, P., Vogl, S. & Zechner, W. (2015). Does timing of implant placement affect implant therapy outcome in the aesthetic zone? A clinical, radiological, aesthetic, and patient‐based evaluation. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. No. 17(6). P. 1188–1199.
Naji, B.M., Abdelsameaa, S.S., Alqutaibi, A.Y. & Said Ahmed, W.M. (2021). Immediate dental implant placement with a horizontal gap more than two millimetres: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. No. 50(5). P. 683–690.
Soydan, S.S., Cubuk, S., Oguz, Y. & Uckan, S. (2013). Are success and survival rates of early implant placement higher than immediate implant placement? International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. No. 42(4). P. 511–515.
Mohindra K (2017) Comparative Evaluation of Crestal Bone Changes after Delayed and Immediate Implant Placement. Dent Implants Dentures. No. 2. P. 120.
Kutkut, A., Rezk, M., Zephyr, D. & et al. (2019). Immediate Loading of Unsplinted Implant Retained Mandibular Overdenture: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. J Oral Implantol. No. 45. P. 378–389.
Potapchuk, A., Rusyn, V., Goncharuk-Khomyn, M. & Hegedus V. (2019). Prognosis of possible implant loss after immediate placement by the laboratorial blood analysis and evaluation of intraoperatively derived bone samples. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research. Vol. 12(1). P. 143–150. doi: 10.36740/ WLek202104134
Potapchuk, A.M., Kryvanych, V.M., Rusyn, V.V. & Goncharuk-Homyn, M.Ju. (2015). Analiz rezul'tativ uspishnosti immediat-implantacii' z vykorystannjam dental'nyh implantativ systemy Zircon Prior Fortis – [Analysis of the success results of immediate implantation using dental implants of the Zircon Prior Fortis system] Klinichna stomatologija ‒ Clinical Dentistry. No. 2. P. 93–99. [in Ukrainian]
Schrott, A., Riggi-Heiniger, M., Maruo, K. & Gallucci, G.O. (2014). Implant loading protocols for partially edentulous patients with extended edentulous sites--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. No. 29. P. 239–255. doi: 10.11607/ jomi.2014suppl.g4.2
Huynh-Ba, G., Oates, T.W. & Williams, M.A.H. (2018) Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients’ perspective: A systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research. No. 16. P. 255–269. doi: 10.1111/clr.13278
