+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A new classification of peri-implant bone morphology: a radiographic study of patients with lower implant-supported mandibular overdentures

A new classification of peri-implant bone morphology: a radiographic study of patients with lower implant-supported mandibular overdentures

Clinical Oral Implants Research 25(8): 905-909

This study aimed to classify peri-implant bone defects (PIBDs) on the basis of their radiographic appearance in a cohort of patients with lower implant-supported overdentures. Eighty-three patients with lower implant-supported overdentures were recruited to participate in the study, which was approved by the ethics committee of Ignatius Teaching Hospital. Details about the patients' smoking habits were recorded. The participants had a total of 224 implants involving 3214 implant sites. The mean observation time of the subjects was 10.7 years. Panoramic radiographs of all sites were evaluated in duplicate (first evaluation [t1], second evaluation [t2]) during 2 weeks by one experienced observer. PIBDs were classified into the following types: saucer-shaped, wedge-shaped, flat, undercut, and slit-like bone defects. Intra-examiner agreement was tested using crosstabs and Cohen's kappa coefficient. The association of PIBD type with gender, time after implant placement, smoking, and treatment strategy was investigated using multivariate test of independence on the basis of spatial signs. Intra-observer reliability was moderate (κ = 0.51). Saucer-shaped defects were the most frequent (42.8% [t1] and 44.6% [t2]), followed by wedge-shaped (26.0% [t1] and 27.4% [t2]), flat (10.7% [t2] and 17.7% [t1]), undercut (8.8% [t1] and 11.9% [t2]), and finally slit-like defects (4.7% [t1] and 5.4% [t2]). Peri-implant bone defects morphology was significantly associated with gender, smoking, and treatment strategy. The morphology of PIBDs can be classified into five meaningful classes, as opposed to the two described in the literature.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036913886

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23718182

DOI: 10.1111/clr.12193

Related references

Effect of two designs of implant-supported overdentures on peri-implant and posterior mandibular bone resorptions: a 5-year prospective radiographic study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 28(10): E184-E192, 2017

Association Between Peri-implant Bone Morphology and Marginal Bone Loss: A Retrospective Study on Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 32(1): 147-155, 2016

Effect of Implant Height Differences on Different Attachment Types and Peri-Implant Bone in Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 3D Finite Element Study. Journal of Oral Implantology 41(3): E50-E59, 2015

Implant-supported versus implant-retained distal extension mandibular partial overdentures and residual ridge resorption: a 5-year retrospective radiographic study in men. International Journal of Prosthodontics 24(4): 306-313, 2016

Influence of Implant Positions and Occlusal Forces on Peri-Implant Bone Stress in Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Journal of Oral Implantology 43(6): 419-428, 2017

Single vs 2 Implants on Peri-implant Marginal Bone Level and Implant Failures in Mandibular Implant Overdentures: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 17(3): 216-225, 2017

Effect of implant position, angulation, and attachment height on peri-implant bone stress associated with mandibular two-implant overdentures: a finite element analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 27(5): E69-E76, 2013

Implant-supported mandibular overdentures and cortical bone formation: clinical and radiographic results. Implant Dentistry 23(1): 85-91, 2014

Factors affecting peri-implant bone resorption in four Implant supported mandibular full-arch restorations: a 3-year prospective study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 43(1): 92, 2016

Implant overdentures: bar versus ball attachment for mandibular implant supported overdentures--a randomised clinical trial. Sadj 59(1): 28-29, 2004

Overdentures supported by two IMZ implants in the lower jaw. A retrospective study of peri-implant tissues. Clinical Oral Implants Research 5(4): 207-212, 1994

Mandibular Flexure and Peri-Implant Bone Stress Distribution on an Implant-Supported Fixed Full-Arch Mandibular Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis. Biomed Research International 2018: 8241313, 2018

Effect of implant loading protocols on failure and marginal bone loss with unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 47(5): 642-650, 2018

Effect of implant number on the movement of mandibular implant-supported overdentures under biting force: An in-vitro study. Quintessence International 49(9): 709-717, 2018

Implant-supported mandibular overdentures can minimize mandibular bone resorption in edentulous patients: results of a long-term radiologic evaluation. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 30(6): 1378-1386, 2016