BMC Oral Health (May 2023)
Influence of buccal and palatal bone thickness on post-surgical marginal bone changes around implants placed in posterior maxilla: a multi-centre prospective study
Abstract
Abstract Background Numerous clinical variables may influence early marginal bone loss (EMBL), including surgical, prosthetic and host-related factors. Among them, bone crest width plays a crucial role: an adequate peri-implant bone envelope has a protective effect against the influence of the aforementioned factors on marginal bone stability. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of buccal and palatal bone thickness at the time of implant placement on EMBL during the submerged healing period. Methods Patients presenting a single edentulism in the upper premolar area and requiring implant-supported rehabilitation were enrolled following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Internal connection implants (Twinfit, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) were inserted after piezoelectric implant site preparation. Mid-facial and mid-palatal thickness and height of the peri-implant bone were measured immediately after implant placement (T0) with a periodontal probe and recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm. After 3 months of submerged healing (T1), implants were uncovered and measurements were repeated with the same protocol. Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was used to compare bone changes from T0 to T1. Multivariate linear regression models were built to assess the influence of different variables on buccal and palatal EMBL. Results Ninety patients (50 females, 40 males, mean age 42.9 ± 15.1 years), treated with the insertion of 90 implants in maxillary premolar area, were included in the final analysis. Mean buccal and palatal bone thickness at T0 were 2.42 ± 0.64 mm and 1.31 ± 0.38 mm, respectively. Mean buccal and palatal bone thickness at T1 were 1.92 ± 0.71 mm and 0.87 ± 0.49 mm, respectively. Changes in both buccal and palatal thickness from T0 to T1 resulted statistically significant (p = 0.000). Changes in vertical bone levels from T0 to T1 resulted not significant both on buccal (mean vertical resorption 0.04 ± 0.14 mm; p = 0.479) and palatal side (mean vertical resorption 0.03 ± 0.11 mm; p = 0.737). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed a significant negative correlation between vertical bone resorption and bone thickness at T0 on both buccal and palatal side. Conclusion The present findings suggest that a bone envelope > 2 mm on the buccal side and > 1 mm on the palatal side may effectively prevent peri-implant vertical bone resorption following surgical trauma. Trial Registration The present study was retrospectively recorded in a public register of clinical trials ( www.clinicaltrials.gov - NCT05632172) on 30/11/2022.
Keywords
