Show simple item record

The significance of vertical platform discrepancies and splinting on marginal bone levels for adjacent dental implants

dc.contributor.authorLin, Guo-Hao
dc.contributor.authorTran, Christine
dc.contributor.authorBrzyska, Karolina
dc.contributor.authorKan, Joseph Y.
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom-Lay
dc.contributor.authorCurtis, Donald A.
dc.contributor.authorKao, Richard T.
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-01T19:09:50Z
dc.date.available2024-05-01 15:09:49en
dc.date.available2023-05-01T19:09:50Z
dc.date.issued2023-04
dc.identifier.citationLin, Guo-Hao ; Tran, Christine; Brzyska, Karolina; Kan, Joseph Y.; Wang, Hom-Lay ; Curtis, Donald A.; Kao, Richard T. (2023). "The significance of vertical platform discrepancies and splinting on marginal bone levels for adjacent dental implants." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 25(2): 321-329.
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899
dc.identifier.issn1708-8208
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/176251
dc.description.abstractObjectiveThe aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the influence of vertical platform discrepancies for splinted and non-splinted adjacent implants on radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL).MethodsData from January 2000 to February 2021 were collected from the electronic charts of 156 patients with 337 implants at the UCSF School of Dentistry. Five different implant restoration categories were evaluated for radiographic evidence of proximal RMBL. Patients with (1) two adjacent single crowns, (2) two adjacent splinted crowns, (3) three-unit bridges supported by two implants, (4) three adjacent single crowns, and (5) three adjacent splinted crowns. Inclusion required baseline radiograph taken at the time of prosthesis delivery or final impression, and follow-up radiographs at least 12 months after restorations have been in function. Measurements assessed included vertical distance between adjacent implant platforms and proximal RMBL around implants. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of implants with ≥1 mm RMBL between different type of restorations were calculated.ResultsIn general, prostheses supported by splinted adjacent implants demonstrated a significant association with the presence of ≥1 mm RMBL (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.17–5.17, p = 0.018) when compared to prostheses supported by non-splinted adjacent implants. In addition, prostheses with a vertical platform discrepancy ≥0.5 mm demonstrated a significant association with the presence of ≥1 mm RMBL (OR = 4.30, 95% CI = 1.85 to 10.01, p = 0.007) when compared to prostheses with a vertical platform discrepancy <0.5 mm. When adjacent implants had ≥0.5 mm vertical platform discrepancy, the majority (66.67%) of three splinted adjacent crowns had at least one implant with ≥1 mm RMBL. This was followed by two splinted adjacent crowns (58.97%), three-unit bridge (25.93%), two single adjacent crowns (24.24%), and three single adjacent crowns (18.18%). When adjacent implants had ≥1 mm vertical platform discrepancy, there was an increased percentage of implants with ≥1 mm RMBL. The restorative design associated with the highest percent of implants with bone loss was three splinted adjacent crowns (70%), two splinted adjacent crowns (61.11%), three single adjacent crowns (40%), and three-unit bridge and two single adjacent implants (21.05%). Three splinted adjacent crowns were significantly associated with ≥1 mm RMBL when compared to three-unit bridge (OR 6.56, 95% CI 1.59–27.07). Similarly, two splinted crowns were significantly associated with ≥1 mm RMBL when compared to two single crowns (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.08–5.79).ConclusionTwo or three adjacent implants placed with a vertical platform discrepancy, when splinted together, are associated with higherincidence of ≥1 mm RMBL than non-splinted restorations.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.otherdental implants
dc.subject.otherimplant-supported dental prosthesis
dc.subject.otherperi-implantitis
dc.subject.otherretrospective study
dc.subject.otherrisk factors
dc.titleThe significance of vertical platform discrepancies and splinting on marginal bone levels for adjacent dental implants
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/176251/1/cid13176_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/176251/2/cid13176.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.13176
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLemos CAA, Verri FR, Santiago Junior JF, et al. Splinted and nonsplinted crowns with different implant lengths in the posterior maxilla by three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Healthc Eng. 2018; 2018: 3163096 - 3163097.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Dental Association. 2005–2006 survey of dental services rendered. ADA; 2007.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElani HW, Starr JR, Da Silva JD, Gallucci GO. Trends in dental implant use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and projections to 2026. J Dent Res. 2018; 97 ( 13 ): 1424 - 1430.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44 ( 3 ): 377 - 388.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoos-Jansaker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Renvert S. Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II. Presence of peri-implant lesions. J Clin Periodontol. 2006; 33 ( 4 ): 290 - 295.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 ( Suppl 1 ): S313 - S318.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 ( Suppl 1 ): S267 - S290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, et al. Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015; 42 ( Suppl 16 ): S152 - S157.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSerino G, Strom C. Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque control. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 ( 2 ): 169 - 174.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatafuchi M, Weinstein BF, Leroux BG, Chen YW, Daubert DM. Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional radiographic analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45 ( 2 ): 225 - 232.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYi Y, Koo KT, Schwarz F, Ben Amara H, Heo SJ. Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol. 2020; 47 ( 3 ): 392 - 403.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMendonca JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM, Matos de Oliveira AE, Sotto-Maior BS. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol. 2014; 85 ( 6 ): 787 - 794.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigolo P, Mutinelli S, Zaccaria M, Stellini E. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30 ( 2 ): 411 - 418.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAl Amri MD, Kellesarian SV. Crestal bone loss around adjacent dental implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted fixed restorations: a systematic literature review. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26 ( 6 ): 495 - 501.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClelland N, Chaudhry J, Rashid RG, McGlumphy E. Split-mouth comparison of splinted and nonsplinted prostheses on short implants: 3-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31 ( 5 ): 1135 - 1141.
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Lemos CAA, et al. Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121 ( 1 ): 41 - 51.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVigolo P, Zaccaria M. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change of multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25 ( 6 ): 1189 - 1194.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevon Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007; 370 ( 9596 ): 1453 - 1457.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71 ( 4 ): 546 - 549.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAvila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, Wang HL. The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol. 2020; 91 ( 3 ): 283 - 288.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaleh MH, Galli M, Siqueira R, Vera M, Wang HL, Ravida A. The prosthetic-biologic connection and its influence on peri-implant health: an overview of the current evidence. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022; 37 ( 4 ): 690 - 699.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNissan J, Ghelfan O, Gross M, Chaushu G. Analysis of load transfer and stress distribution by splinted and unsplinted implant-supported fixed cemented restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37 ( 9 ): 658 - 662.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKao RT, Lin GH, Kapila Y, Sadowsky S, Curtis DA. A commentary on strategic extraction. J Periodontol. 2022; 93 ( 1 ): 11 - 19.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRavida A, Saleh MHA, Muriel MC, Maska B, Wang HL. Biological and technical complications of splinted or nonsplinted dental implants: a decision tree for selection. Implant Dent. 2018; 27 ( 1 ): 89 - 94.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.