| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
1 School of Dental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstr. 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany;
2 Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany;
3 Private Practice, Darmstadt, Germany; and
4 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
* corresponding author, Siegfried.Heckmann{at}zp.med.uni-erlangen.de
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: peri-implant bone loss • biomechanical stress • inflammation • single-standing implants • splinted implants
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Bone loss caused by plaque-induced inflammation has been documented in both animal (Hickey et al., 1991) and human studies (Mombelli et al., 1987). As for biomechanical factors, bone loss has been observed in animal models with dynamic loading (Hoshaw et al., 1994; Isidor, 1997; Miyata et al., 2000; Duyck et al., 2001). Static loading, however, appears to increase bone density (Gotfredsen et al., 2001). In the clinical setting, bone loss has been related to increased stress resulting from the superstructure design (Quirynen et al., 1992), as well as to occlusal factors (Lindquist et al., 1988, 1997). In the presence of peri-implantitis, dynamic loading (Miyata et al., 1998) may, again, be more detrimental than static loading (Gotfredsen et al., 2002). Since clinical data on stress and inflammation are scarce, further insight into the impact of each factor alone, as well as into both factors combined, would be valuable.
In the study presented here, stress is categorized by 2 different attachment mechanisms, and inflammation is categorized by means of a newly developed Composite Inflammation Score. It was hypothesized that, at equivalent inflammation levels, bone loss is greater for increased stress levels.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Starting from a cohort of 14 patients with 36 single-standing implants with non-rigid telescopic attachments (Heckmann et al., 2004b), a corresponding number of 14 patients with 44 implants splinted over bar attachments was chosen. The criterion for the selection of those for the splinted-implant group was the best possible match with the single-standing-implant group for cofactors of bone loss and inflammation. Almost identical values were obtained in terms of gender, smoking habits, bite force, mean age, and time implants had been in situ. The unique construction design of the non-rigid telescopic attachment and the long in situ time of the implants, coupled with the patients’ elevated ages, account for the sample size. The implants were comprised of one-and two-part types, with the same endosteal design and supra-alveolar implant-abutment connection. Similar healing and loading protocols were applied; thus, implant geometry above bone level was the sole difference (Table 1
; cf. Fig. 1).
|
|
Classification of Inflammation: Composite Inflammation Score
To standardize the inflammation, we introduced a Composite Inflammation Score. The score values of 4 clinical inflammatory parameters were added: Modified Plaque Index, Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate, Modified Bleeding Index, and the width of the Keratinized Mucosa.
The Modified Plaque Index represents the cause of inflammation, both Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate and Modified Bleeding Index the degree of inflammation, while Keratinized Mucosa is a modulating factor.
To allow for comparability with the radiographic analysis, we referred all measurements taken to the mesial and distal aspects, resulting in 160 sites. The modified Plaque Index and modified Bleeding Index scores were applied as measured. Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate was assessed twice and the mean value calculated. Since Keratinized Mucosa was not to be measured mesially and distally, vestibular and lingual values were averaged. Both Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate and Keratinized Mucosa values were transformed into scores (Table 1
). All measurements were carried out by two calibrated examiners.
The score values for each inflammatory parameter were divided into 3 classes, representing 3 biologically homogeneous groups (I, II, III). Composite Inflammation Score values were grouped with score values 
1 (I), 2–3 (II), and 
4 (III). For the individual parameters Modified Plaque Index, Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate, Modified Bleeding Index, and Keratinized Mucosa, the groups’ score values were 0 (I), 1 (II), and 2 (III).
Radiographic Analysis
We took digital panoramic radiographs to measure the bone loss mesially and distally. Since one- and two-part implants differ in their configuration above bone level, the standard parameter Distance Implant Bone (Weber et al., 1992) could not be applied without bias. Instead, a modified procedure, independent of supraosseous landmarks, was introduced (Fig. 1).
Each implant was calibrated based on the distance between the uppermost and the lowermost visible thread crests, with 1.25 mm between 2 adjacent crests (Sidexis®, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). The reference points were the apex and the coronal bone-to-implant contact projected to the midline of the implant. Bone loss was calculated as the length of the corresponding rough surface minus the distance between the reference points. The entire analysis was carried out by one single researcher. Single-standing and splinted implants were evaluated alternately, with 3 measurements averaged for each site.
Statistical Analysis
Bone loss may be influenced by both stress and inflammation and was therefore taken as a dependent variable. Independent variables were the factor variable stress (value 0 for lower stress in single-standing, value 1 for increased stress in splinted implants) and the concomitant variable inflammation. To analyze differences between both stress groups, we used 3 different methods: regression analysis, analysis of variance, and two-sample t tests.
We carried out regression analysis to demonstrate the correlation between bone loss and inflammation. Since data had been gathered from records comprising both bone loss and inflammatory parameters, it was necessary to test in advance whether Composite Inflammation Score, Modified Plaque Index, Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate, Modified Bleeding Index, and Keratinized Mucosa were equally distributed across both stress groups, by the Mann-Whitney-test. As a result, regression analysis was applicable only to the Modified Plaque Index (p = 0.395) and the Modified Bleeding Index (p = 0.870) in the strict sense. The regression lines for Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate (p = 0.000), Keratinized Mucosa (p = 0.000), and Composite Inflammation Score (p = 0.001) were to be extrapolated. Since the regression lines for the factor variable values 0 (single-standing) and 1 (splinted) differed in slope, analysis of covariance was not applicable. Instead, linear regression analysis was used for each stress group and inflammatory parameter separately.
Due to the limited applicability of the regression analysis, an additional method, based on the 3 biologically homogeneous groups, was used. The analysis of covariance served to evaluate the general variability of bone loss within both stress groups for each inflammatory parameter. Two-sample t tests were used for pairwise comparisons of the biologically homogeneous groups and the stress groups.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
): Composite Inflammation Score (slope = 0.565; p = 0.000), Modified Plaque Index (slope = 0.605; p = 0.005), Sulcus Fluid Flow Rate (slope = 1.315; p = 0.000), Modified Bleeding Index (slope = 0.649; p = 0.024), and Keratinized Mucosa (slope = 0.994; p = 0.000).
|
The t tests showed a slight increase in bone loss throughout the biologically homogeneous groups of Composite Inflammation Scores in the single-standing implants, while in the splinted implants, a notable increase was seen. A comparison within the Composite Inflammation Score groups I to III revealed higher bone loss in group I for the single-standing implants and in group II as well as group III for the splinted implants (Fig. 2A).
|
). |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
With regard to the Composite Inflammation Score, all statistical tests revealed an increasing discrepancy in bone loss between single-standing and splinted implants as score values increased. One explanation for bone loss may therefore be seen in the different biomechanical conditions, since possible cofactors were controlled. Thus, increased stress in splinted implants might enhance the susceptibility to inflammatory bone loss, or vice versa. If one considers single-standing implants as being at high, and splinted implants at low, Composite Inflammation Score levels, stress and inflammation alone do not necessarily provoke bone loss.
Since the Composite Inflammation Score was established on the basis of 4 different inflammatory parameters, its strong point lies in the combination of them. Similarly, the individual parameters revealed a tendency toward greater bone loss in the splinted implants. These parameters underline the fact that higher plaque formation, bleeding, exudation of sulcus fluid, and lack of keratinized mucosa may be associated with more bone loss around splinted implants. Site-specific inflammation is more likely to occur around splinted bar constructions, in addition to the assumed stress situation. The differences in bone loss found, however, cannot be explained by a niche effect, since sites of equivalent inflammation were compared in all cases. The reason for the negative correlation between Keratinized Mucosa and bone loss in the single-standing implants remains unclear. However, the missing positive correlation is concurrent with relevant literature, suggesting that keratinized mucosa might be dispensable around implants which are easily accessible to oral hygiene (Wennström et al., 1994).
The causes of peri-implant bone loss have been investigated in various studies, most of which were based on animal models (Hoshaw et al., 1994; Miyata et al., 2000; Duyck et al., 2001; Hürzeler et al., 1998). Regardless of their usefulness for particular scientific questions, animal studies often do not produce long-term data (Gotfredsen et al., 2001) and are not easily applicable to the situation in humans, i.e., occlusal overload is difficult to monitor, or intra-oral force devices may not match the real-life situation (Carr et al., 1996).
For this reason, clinical studies would be of considerable value, which, for ethical reasons, excludes invasive methods. Moreover, one has to seek valid assumptions to determine stress. In the few studies on this subject, long cantilevers (Lindquist et al., 1988) and parafunctions (Lindquist et al., 1988; Quirynen et al., 1992) were reported to be associated with bone loss. The multifactorial etiology of poor oral hygiene and extensive loading in combination (Lindquist et al., 1988) is also concurrent with the study presented. But, in a long-term follow-up of the same patients, smoking was underlined as being even more critical. The authors also suggested that signs of parafunction might not truly reflect the loading situation (Lindquist et al., 1997).
Taking this as a basis, the approach applied in the study distinguishes between the effects of stress and those of inflammation on bone loss. Stress was categorized by 2 different attachment mechanisms (single-standing, splinted), and the inflammatory situation was standardized based on a Composite Inflammation Score. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded in patients whose implants had been in situ for more than 10 yrs.
Slight differences in implant geometry were not considered to affect the results. Though the number of implants per patient could not be exactly matched for all single-standing and splinted implants, the basic character of the attachment systems, with their implications for biomechanical stress, remained unchanged.
No attempt was made to measure the stress situation in splinted implants over time, since this would not produce information of great value to this study. This approach would have required the removal of the bars, with the risk of refixation (Jäger and Wirz, 1994). Furthermore, the obvious limitations of in vivo tests (Lindquist et al., 1997; Gotfredsen et al., 2001) must be pointed out. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence of increased stress in splinted implants from in vitro tests (Jäger and Wirz, 1994; Heckmann et al., 2001) and combined in vitro and in vivo studies (Hobkirk and Schwab, 1991; Smedberg et al., 1996; Heckmann et al., 2004a).
While one- and two-part implants were used in this study, the microgap between implant and abutment was located above bone level in both groups and should therefore not notably have contributed to the total degree of inflammation (Broggini et al., 2003).
Although the reliability of the clinical parameters presented has been controversial (Verhoeven et al., 2000), these parameters nevertheless appear to be appropriate for monitoring the peri-implant soft-tissue conditions (Mombelli and Lang, 1994). The Composite Inflammation Score is therefore intended as a plausible combination of well-established inflammatory parameters. An evaluation of the Composite Inflammation Score on the basis of longitudinal data would be valuable. With the design at hand, however, only cross-sectional ten-year data were available.
Due to the impracticality of taking peri-apical radiographs in elderly patients with severely atrophied mandibles, we used digital panoramic radiographs (De Smet et al., 2002) to calculate peri-implant bone loss. The radiographic analysis rests upon the assumption that the implants were placed as recommended, with the coronal border of the rough surface and the adjacent bone at the same level (Weber et al., 1992).
Ultimately, the hypothesis of this study was supported in relation to moderate and increased levels of inflammation: In splinted implants, a proportional relationship between inflammation and bone loss appears to exist. In single-standing implants, however, almost no correlation was found. The increasing discrepancy between the two implant groups can therefore be ascribed to the splinted attachment type. Thus, on the basis of the assumed stress situations, neither stress nor inflammation alone would induce notable bone loss, whereas stress coupled with inflammation constitutes a detrimental combination.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received May 19, 2005; Last revision April 5, 2006; Accepted May 11, 2006
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. (2003). Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 82:232–237.
Carr AB, Gerard DA, Larsen PE (1996). The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit. J Prosthet Dent 76:500–509.[ISI][Medline]
Cox JF, Zarb GA (1987). The longitudinal clinical efficacy of osseointegrated dental implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2:91–100.[Medline]
De Smet E, Jacobs R, Gijbels F, Naert I (2002). The accuracy and reliability of radiographic methods for the assessment of marginal bone level around oral implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:176–181.[Abstract]
Duyck J, Ronold HJ, Van Oosterwyck H, Naert I, Vander Sloten J, Ellingsen JE (2001). The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:207–218.[ISI][Medline]
Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P (1998). Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II) Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 106:721–764.[ISI][Medline]
Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (2001). Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load. A study in the dog (I). Clin Oral Implants Res 12:1–8.[ISI][Medline]
Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J (2002). Bone reactions at implants subjected to experimental peri-implantitis and static load. A study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 29:144–151.[ISI][Medline]
Heckmann SM, Winter W, Meyer M, Weber HP, Wichmann MG (2001). Overdenture attachment selection and the loading of implant and denture-bearing area. Part 2: A methodical study using five types of attachment. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:640–647.[ISI][Medline]
Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD (2004a). Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:466–473.[ISI][Medline]
Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP (2004b). Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:560–569.[ISI][Medline]
Hickey JS, O’Neal RB, Scheidt MJ, Strong SL, Turgeon D, Van Dyke TE (1991). Microbiologic characterization of ligature-induced peri-implantitis in the microswine model. J Periodontol 62:548–553.[ISI][Medline]
Hobkirk JA, Schwab J (1991). Mandibular deformation in subjects with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:319–328.[Medline]
Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GV (1994). Mechanical loading of Brånemark implants affects interfacial bone modelling and remodelling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9:345–360.
Hürzeler MB, Quinones CR, Kohal RJ, Rohde M, Strub JR, Teuscher U, et al. (1998). Changes in peri-implant tissues subjected to orthodontic forces and ligature breakdown in monkeys. J Periodontol 69:396–404.[ISI][Medline]
Isidor F (1997). Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:1–9.[ISI][Medline]
Jäger K, Wirz J (1994). Mandibular hybrid dentures with 4 implants. An in-vitro stress analysis. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 104:1489–1494 [in German].[Medline]
Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE (1988). Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 59:59–63.[ISI][Medline]
Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T (1997). Association between marginal bone loss around osseointegrated mandibular implants and smoking habits: a 10-year follow-up study. J Dent Res 76:1667–1674.
Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Motomura Y, Shin K (1998). The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue: a histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:677–683.[ISI][Medline]
Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Ohto T, Shin K (2000). The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. Part 3: A histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:425–431.[ISI][Medline]
Mombelli A, Lang NP (1994). Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontol 2000 4:81–86.
Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schürch E Jr, Lang NP (1987). The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2:145–151.[Medline]
Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D (1992). Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:104–111.[Medline]
Smedberg JI, Nilner K, Rangert B, Svensson SA, Glantz PO (1996). On the influence of superstructure connection on implant preload: a methodological and clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:55–63.[ISI][Medline]
Spörlein E, Tetsch P (1986). Sulkusfluidmessung bei Titanimplantaten im zahnlosen Unterkiefer. Z Zahnärztl Implantol 2:92–96.
Verhoeven JW, Cune MS, de Putter C (2000). Reliability of some clinical parameters of evaluation in implant dentistry. J Oral Rehabil 27:211–216.[ISI][Medline]
Weber HP, Buser D, Fiorellini JP, Williams RC (1992). Radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels adjacent to nonsubmerged titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:181–188.[Medline]
Wennström JL, Bengazi F, Lekholm U (1994). The influence of the masticatory mucosa on the peri-implant soft tissue condition. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:1–8.[Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
