Next Article in Journal
Secretoneurin as a Novel Biomarker of Cardiovascular Episodes: Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
How Is Endodontics Taught in Italy? A Survey of Italian Dental Schools
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Importance of Corticalization Occurring in Alveolar Bone Surrounding a Dental Implant

Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, 113 Żeromskiego Str., 90-549 Lodz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(23), 7189; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237189
Submission received: 22 October 2022 / Revised: 29 November 2022 / Accepted: 30 November 2022 / Published: 2 December 2022

Abstract

:
Several measures describing the transformation of trabecular bone to cortical bone on the basis of analysis of intraoral radiographs are known (including bone index or corticalization index, CI). At the same time, it has been noted that after functional loading of dental implants such transformations occur in the bone directly adjacent to the fixture. Intuitively, it seems that this is a process conducive to the long-term maintenance of dental implants and certainly necessary when immediate loading is applied. The authors examined the relationship of implant design features to marginal bone loss (MBL) and the intensity of corticalization over a 10-year period of functional loading. This study is a general description of the phenomenon of peri-implant bone corticalization and an attempt to interpret this phenomenon to achieve success of implant treatment in the long term. Corticalization significantly increased over the first 5-year functional loading (CI from 200 ± 146 initially to 282 ± 182, p < 0.001) and maintained a high level (CI = 261 ± 168) in the 10-year study relative to the reference bone (149 ± 178). MBL significantly increased throughout the follow-up period—5 years: 0.83 ± 1.26 mm (p < 0.001), 10 years: 1.48 ± 2.01 mm (p < 0.001). MBL and radiographic bone structure (CI) were evaluated in relation to intraosseous implant design features and prosthetic work performed. In the scope of the study, it can be concluded that the phenomenon of peri-implant jawbone corticalization seems an unfavorable condition for the future fate of bone-anchored implants, but it requires further research to fully explain the significance of this phenomenon.

1. Introduction

The use of dental implants is the primary method of replacing missing teeth. Nowadays, it is very widely modified [1,2,3] and applied from simple oral surgery [4] to very advanced craniomaxillofacial procedures [5,6,7,8]. This implant treatment has good long-term results, but still some implants are lost.
It has long been noted that bone apposition and remodeling processes occur around dental implants. Direct evidence of these phenomena is provided by dental implants removed after many years of their functional load [9]. Retrieval and histological analysis of dental implants for fracture or other reasons (such as orthodontic, psychological, esthetic, and hygienic reasons) [10] is able to explain the corticalization phenomenon induced by implants. Most of the present histological studies on human specimens find compact, lamellar bone with many Haversian systems and osteons near the implant surface with increased bone-implant contact (BIC) up to 60–90% in 7–8 years mean duration of functional loading [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. It is also worth summarizing two well-known truths on the basis of these studies. First, loaded implants presented an average of 10% higher BIC when compared with unloaded ones. Second, approx. 10–12% higher BIC is reported for immediately loaded dental implants [32,33,34,35]. In loaded implants, transverse collagen fibers of the bone are more abundant, while in unloaded implants, these collagen fibers in bone tended to run in a more longitudinal way. Peri-implant bone is particularly thickened around the top of the threads [36]. Rougher surfaces have approx. a 10% higher area of bone apposition than machined surfaces. However, the Scandinavians, having introduced implants with a machined surface in the 1970s, still believe that these implants have superiority over implants with a moderately rough surface [37]. Multiple remodeled regions representing many remodeling cycles over the years are found in peri-implant bone. Ongoing apposition and resorption phenomena were present inside the threads. The osteocyte number is higher near loaded versus unloaded implants [10].
Moreover, it was already reported [38] that loading was able to stimulate bone remodeling at the interface, that a higher percentage of lamellar bone was found in loaded implants and more osteoblasts and osteoclasts were found in those loaded implants. The implant loading seemed to determine differences in the distribution of the bone collagen fibers too [14,39,40]. The transverse collagen fibers were mainly located at the lower flank of the threads, where compressive loads exerted their effects. Transverse collagen fibers have been described as the fibers most able to resist compressive loads, and this fact can explain their higher quantity in loaded than unloaded implants. A lower mineral density was present in the peri-implant bone around unloaded implants [41]. The loading forces direction could have determined a higher mineralization of the osseous tissue located in the coronal side of the threads when compared to that in an apical location [42].
The above-mentioned observations are probably so pronounced in the jaws because the bone appositional index here is one of the highest in the human body [43]. It is higher than in the iliac bone, femur or vertebrae. This process leads to the osseointegration of the dental implants firstly but later probably is responsible for the corticalization. The remodeling and the superimposition of new osteons on the older ones is found too [44].
Knowing that crestal bone is the basis for dental implants to function as intended [45,46], it seems that other factors such as gingival pocket, biotype, width of keratinized gingival zone, color and translucency of soft tissues [47,48,49] are secondary. In recent years, there seems to be a growing interest in the phenomenon of corticalization [50,51,52]. It has been hypothesized that almost no bone loss can be expected after bone remodeling over the implant neck [53]. It will be interesting to see whether the corticalization phenomenon affects the height of the bone supporting the implant. The question arises as to how this process is related to vertical bone loss and how it relates to the long-term success of implant treatment. For this, analysis of the microstructure of the bone surrounding the implant is needed [54], and the key place is the bone adjacent to the implant neck [55,56].
Fine bone morphology can be registered using microcomputed tomography as well as even using 3-tesla magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) [57]. Magnetic resonance tomography instruments that trigger a field of 7 tesla have also been available for several years and are being used to analyze bone microstructure [58]. However, a series of limitations of these advanced technologies should be highlighted. In daily clinical practice, it is standard practice to use intraoral radiographs [59,60,61,62,63,64] or pantomographic radiographs [65,66,67,68] to analyze the condition of the peri-implant jawbone. Cone-beam tomographs [69] are used much less frequently. The cost of a 7-tesla scanner is not inconsiderable. There is little availability of this newly developed technology. There are no developed sequences for peri-implant jawbone imaging. Metal components such dental implants and parts of prosthetic work can create artifacts in MRI images and interfere with the diagnostic process, not to mention advanced studies of the bone structure at the implant wall [70], and most importantly, MRI is used to study the cancellous bone, not the structure of the cortical bone [71,72,73,74,75]. This is still a matter of the future [76], and for now, one can rely on imaging studies with the use of intraoral, periapical radiographs [77,78] for the reasons cited above.
The suspected long-term disadvantage of corticalization [79] is based on bone index (BI) analysis. There are some doubts about the specificity of this measure in detecting corticalization [80]. It seems that this measure does not discriminate very strongly between homogeneous dark areas (crestal bone loss) and homogeneous bright areas (corticalization of trabecular bone). Another inconvenience is the need to use the inverse of the bone index, i.e., 1/BI. Next, it is known that 1/BI is highest in bone loss regions, significantly lower in cortical bone and lowest significantly at the site of trabecular bone [80].
The aim of this study was to determine whether corticalization (basing on the corticalization index) in long-term follow-up is a negative phenomenon for the fate of dental implants.

2. Materials and Methods

The collected material is the result of prospective acquisition of radiological data during the clinical course of oral implantological treatment of patients with missing teeth in the maxillary and mandibular region. Inclusion criteria: at least 18 years of age, bleeding on gingival probing < 20%, probing depth ≤ 3 mm, good oral hygiene, regular follow-ups, following doctor’s orders. Exclusion criteria: uncontrolled internal co-morbidity (diabetes mellitus, thyroid dishormonoses, rheumatoid disease and other immunodeficiencies), a history of oral radiation therapy, past or current use of cytostatic drugs, soft tissue augmentation, low quality or lack of follow-up radiographs. General health was confirmed via anamnesis and evaluation of body mass index (BMI) using a serum test of thyrotropin, calcium and triglycerides (the way to describe their general condition, i.e., emanation of the health status on entry to the study). Finally, clinical and radiological data of 911 persons were included in this study.
The dental implants were inserted by one dentist (M.K.) according to the protocols recommended by the manufacturers. A total of 22 types of dental implant were used in this study: AB Dental Devices I5 (www.ab-dent.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Ashdod, Israel) 102 pieces, ADIN Dental Implants Touareg (www.adin-implants.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Afula, Israel) 89 pieces, Alpha Bio ARRP (www.alpha-bio.net (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 14 pieces, Alpha Bio ATI (www.alpha-bio.net (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 139 pieces, Alpha Bio DFI (www.alpha-bio.netv (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 43 pieces, Alpha Bio OCI (www.alpha-bio.net (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 28 pieces, Alpha Bio SFB (www.alpha-bio.net (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 62 pieces, Alpha Bio SPI (www.alpha-bio.net (accessed on 21 July 2022), Petah-Tikva, Israel) 448 pieces, Argon K3pro Rapid (www.argon-dental.de (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bingen am Rhein, Germany) 182 pieces, Bego Semados RI (www.bego-implantology.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bremen, Germany) 12 pieces, Dentium Super Line (www.dentium.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) 38 pieces, Friadent Ankylos C/X (www.dentsplysirona.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Warszawa, Poland) 14 pieces, Implant Direct InterActive (www.implantdirect.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Thousand Oaks, United States of America) 139 pieces, Implant Direct Legacy 3 (www.implantdirect.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Thousand Oaks, United States of America) 48 pieces, MIS BioCom M4 (www.mis-implants.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel) 8 pieces, MIS C1 (www.mis-implants.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel) 307 pieces, MIS Seven (www.mis-implants.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel) 921 pieces, MIS UNO One Piece (www.mis-implants.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel) 40 pieces, Osstem Implant Company GS III (www.en.osstem.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Seoul, South Korea) 15 pieces, SGS Dental P7N (www.sgs-dental.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Schaan, Liechtenstein) 12 pieces, TBR Implanté (www.tbr.dental (accessed on 21 July 2022), Toulouse, France) 6 pieces, and Wolf Dental Conical Screw-Type (www.wolf-dental.com (accessed on 21 July 2022), Osnabrück, Germany) 31 pieces. The total number of introduced dental implants was 2700 pieces. The appearance of the tested implants is shown in Figure 1.
All implants were loaded late, i.e., min. 3 months after the implants were placed in the bone. Standardized intraoral radiographs [81] were taken immediately before prosthetic restoration (initial radiograph), 5 and 10 years later. Focus X-ray apparatus (Instrumental Dental, Tuusula, Finland) was set to the constant technical parameters: exposure time 0.1 s, voltage in the lamp 70 kV and current 7 mA. An intraoral parallel technique was used. To ensure an identical relative position of the implant, an X-ray tube and radiation detector and a set of RINN XCP rings and holders were utilized (Dentsply International Inc., Cheung Sha Wan, Hong Kong, China) with a silicone bite index. The video part of the system was a recording plate with a photosensitive storage surface (Digora Optime digital radiography system—Soredex, Tuusula, Finland [61]). Immediately after the X-ray exposure, the storage phosphor plate was placed in a scanner that reads radiographic information (the image size was 476 × 620 pixels; the pixel size was 70 μm × 70 μm). A computer coupled with the scanner processed, presented and archived acquired images. Patients included in the study were followed by a single dentist during the entire period. The average marginal bone loss (MBL) of the alveolar crest after osseointegration (initial) at 5 and 10 years of functional loading was measured. In addition, the bone texture features at these time periods were calculated. The influence of factors related to implant design (Table 1) was evaluated.
In the radiographs obtained in this way, a region of interest (ROI) was established in the area of bone near the implant neck (Figure 2, green). The second ROI was established in an image of intact bone distant from the dental implant (it was referent bone, yellow). The surface area of each ROI was 1500 pixels squared.
Radiologically recorded peri-implant bone structure was studied via digital texture analysis using the corticalization index previously proposed [80] as version 1 (CI). It consists of the product of a measure that evaluates the number of long series of pixels of similar optical density with the mean optical density of the studied site (in the numerator) and the magnitude of the chaotic arrangement of the texture pattern, i.e., differential entropy (in the denominator).
The texture of X-ray images was analyzed in MaZda 4.6 freeware invented by the University of Technology in Lodz [82] to test measures of corticalization in the per-implant environment of trabecular bone (representing original bone before implant-dependent alterations) and soft tissue (representing product of marginal bone loss). MaZda provides both first-order (mean optical density) and second-order (differential entropy: DifEntr, long-run emphasis moment: LngREmph) data. Due to the fact that the second-order data are given for four directions in the image and in the present study the authors do not wish to search for directional features, the arithmetic mean of these four primary data was included for further analysis. The regions of interest (ROIs) were normalized (μ ± 3σ) to share the same mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of optical density within the ROI. To eliminate noise [83] further, worked on data were reduced to 6 bits. For analysis in a co-occurrences matrix, a spacing of 5 pixels was chosen. In the formulas that follow, p(i) is a normalized histogram vector (i.e., histogram whose entries are divided by the total number of pixels in ROI), i = 1,2,…, Ng, and Ng denotes the number of optical density levels. The mean optical density feature (only a first order feature) was calculated as below:
Mean   Optical   Density = i = 1 N g i p ( i )
Second order features:
DifEntr = i = 1 N g p x y ( i ) l o g ( p x y ( i ) )
where Σ is the sum, Ng is the number of levels of optical density in the radiograph, i and j are the optical density of pixels 5 pixels distant one from another, p is the probability and log is the common logarithm [54]. The differential entropy calculated in this way is a measure of the overall scatter of bone structure elements in a radiograph. Its high values are typical for cancellous bone [64,84,85,86]. Next, the last primary texture feature was calculated:
LngREmph = i = 1 N g k = 1 N r k 2 p ( i , k ) i = 1 N g k = 1 N r p ( i , k )
where Σ is the sum, Nr is the number of series of pixels with density level i and length k, Ng is the number of levels for image optical density, Nr is the number of pixel in the series and p is the probability [87,88]. This texture feature describes thick, uniformly dense, radio-opaque bone structures in intra-oral radiograph images [84,86].
The equations for mean optical density, DifEntr and LngREmph were subsequently used for the corticalization index (CI) construction [80]:
LngREmph = i = 1 N g k = 1 N r k 2 p ( i , k ) i = 1 N g k = 1 N r p ( i , k )
Statistical analysis includes feature distribution evaluation, mean (t-test) or median (W-test) comparison, analysis of regression and one-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test as no-normal distribution or between-group variance indicated significant differences in investigated groups. Detected differences or relationships were assumed to be statistically significant when p < 0.05. Statgraphics Centurion version 18.1.12 (StatPoint Technologies, Warrenton, VA, USA) was used for statistical analyses.

3. Results

In the implantological material collected, it was found at baseline (initial) that 86.7% of the implants were not affected by marginal bone loss at all and 13.3% of the implants had some degree of bone loss (in this subgroup the MBL was 1.93 ± 1.85 mm). After 5 years, bone loss was not present in 54.4% of the implants, and bone loss was noted in 43.6% of the implants (in this subgroup the MBL was 1.91 ± 1.26 mm). At the final point of the study, i.e., after 10 years of functional loading, there was zero bone loss in 44.4% of implants, while 55.6% were affected to some degree by marginal bone loss (in this subgroup the MBL was 2.67 ± 2.04 mm).
A sequential, significant increase in the CI in peri-implant bone was observed from the initial study (i.e., just after functional loading) to five years (p < 0.001). Subsequently, a slight decrease in the CI was noted at the ten-year study (p < 0.05), but the CI is significantly higher than on the day functional loading began. When analyzing MBL, it was found to progress statistically significantly throughout the study with high significance (p < 0.001). When examining the relationship between CI and MBL, it was noticed that the two variables were associated with each other from five years after the functional loading of the dental implants, i.e., at the fifth year: CC = 0.11, R2 = 1.2%, p < 0.001, and at the tenth year: CC = 0.12, R2 = 1.4%, p < 0.01. MBL was directly proportionally related with an increase in the CI (Table 2 and Figure 3).
It is important to evaluate corticalization in relation to basic epidemiological data. Hence, the relationship with gender, smoking, location, etc. is shown below (Table 3).
Sex, pre-prosthetic surgical augmentation procedures and surgical technique for augmentation are not a differentiating factor for the study population at any stage of the survey. In contrast, the opposite is true of localization. For smokers with implants put in the mandible or posterior part of the dental arch, corticalization is higher than in the smoker group (excluding 5-year observation) with implants in the maxilla or posterior dental arch, throughout the study period. The association of increasing weight, height and BMI (as well as serum calcium levels) in patients with a decreasing corticalization index can be seen. On the other hand, increasing age (but no relation found in 10-year investigation) and thyrotropin levels in the patients studied are accompanied by an increasing corticalization index (Figure 4).
The results obtained for the different types of implants that remained under long-term follow-up are shown below (Figure 5). They are arranged in all four graphs from the implant type with the lowest peri-implant bone corticalization to the highest corticalization (for both CI and MBL). It is noticeable that MBL does not correspond directly to CI values for individual implants. Therefore, further analyses were performed in groups organized differently, i.e., according to the features of the implant designs (Table 4) and the prosthetic restoration used (Table 5).
In the group of implants made of grade 5 titanium alloy, lower corticalization was noted in the initial period, which increased significantly at 5 years. A higher MBL occurred in the later observation periods. Throughout the observation period, implants inserted subcrestally have the lowest MBL. However, surprisingly, during the initial period, the lowest bone loss is accompanied by the highest level of corticalization. These differences disappear at the five-year follow-up period, and then at the ten-year follow-up period the relationships reverse—the lowest corticalization is with subcrestally inserted implants as also the MBL is the lowest. One-piece implants (i.e., of the “Custom” connection type contrary to internal connection) were characterized by higher MBL up to and including the fifth year of observation. This is not followed by the CI value. Evaluating the connection shape, it could be seen that corticalization is greatest with one-piece implants (i.e., without a socket for the abutment), but this does not go hand in hand with the MBL value at five and ten years. When the implants do not have a haed microthread, higher MBL values are recorded with them. CI values are also elevated, but statistically insignificant. The shape of the implant body has no effect on corticalization and marginal loss at either the initial or the 10-year follow-up period. It was only noted that in the fifth year of functional loading there was less corticalization and more bone loss with tapered implants. The lowest MBL and highest CI were noted in implants with a V shape and reverse butteress thread. The lowest bone loss supported by an increased CI occurred with flat apex implants. Only increasing bone loss over time was observed in implants with apex groove. This was not followed by increasing CI values.
Platform switching induces less corticalization of peri-implant bone, as do single-crown restorations. Such restorations have low MBLs, but the lowest MBLs are found in cases of bridges. Implant-supported bridges initially have a high CI, but at 10-year follow-up, corticalization is already lower than in splinted crowns and overdentures.

4. Discussion

The healing process and osseointegration in dental implants is a dynamic phenomenon. When an implant is installed, the next surgical procedure causes some marginal bone loss [89]. Within the initial healing phase, the recruitment and migration of osteoprogenitor cells to the surface of the implant occurs. During the secondary healing phase, new bone is apposited. Next, the peri-implant bone is reabsorbed and replaced with a new viable bone, i.e., remodeling is featured [32,33,34,35,44,89]. In cases of successful treatment, this reaction reaches a balance with the patient’s body, and only in disequilibrium does the MBL increase, thereby damaging peri-implant bone [90]. Pinpointing what underlies this dysfunction is crucial for current dental implantology.
In a long-term study [91], assessment of corticalization in peri-implant bone was performed only visually (Figure 2 in Buser’s study) and described in the 10-year data as “well-corticalized”. In the current state of development of image analysis methods, a much more precise description can be obtained [82,92]. However, this is a high-quality study, and the authors collected results depicting the corticalization phenomenon. This can be seen in the radiological figures, e.g., Figure 9 in Ref. [91], where MBL is preceded in the bone by a pronounced disappearance of trabeculation and an increase in bone density. However, the authors did not point out the corticalization. Similarly, this is seen in Figure 5 in Albrektsson’s publication [93]. Today, the phenomenon of bone density increase can be analyzed qualitatively and, of course, in relation to the MBL [44,45]. Similar interesting illustrative material can be found in another 10-year follow-up study [37] where there are clear features of severe peri-implant bone corticalization in their Figure 1b. Unfortunately, the corticalization term is not used at all by the authors. This is probably due to the purpose of the paper and the lack of publications analyzing bone texture at dental implants in detail. One can also find a publication based on radiographic material, which does not include a single X-ray in the text [94]. In this case, it is impossible to determine what the authors faced in their study. The second issue is the use of simple quantitative measures (they do not describe the internal state of the bone), e.g., the percentage of implant surface remaining in contact with the jawbone (bone-to-implant contact, BIC) or the amount of marginal bone loss from the alveolar crest (MBL). Intuitively, it seems that bone quality (structure testing) is important in the long-term maintenance of dental implants [95].
Corticalization (and associated marginal bone loss) related with the type of implant used is not easy to interpret but is definitely the result of the aforementioned balance and bone remodeling. It probably depends on the type of implant, but implant selection is not random. It depends on the bone conditions and the possibility of using prosthetic solutions in a given implantological system, which correspond to a given dento-gnathic status. Finally, certainly, it depends on the dentist’s preferences for using a particular implant system. The results presented here are derived from these many influencing factors, but this is a typical situation in everyday clinical work and hence worth considering and trying to understand.
It is now known from everyday clinical work that implant treatment is very long term or even over a lifetime [96]. It seems that the changes in peri-implant bone structure observed at this time are not a simple projection of the occlusal load in the bone [40], but a complex modulation of osteoimmunological activity [97,98,99]. Recently, it has been noticed that mechanotransduction may promote the alteration of bone marrow monocyte activation. Thus, occlusal force may modulate the osteoimmunity in peri-implant bone [100]. In addition, there is a synergy between mechanical loading and the signaling pathway for macrophage function, which is related to the αM integrin controlling the activity of the mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1 [101] and the genetically determined bone reaction [102]. Further confirmation of an osteoimmodulatory mechanism, rather than a simple loading reaction, in peri-implant bone remodeling is the positive role of topically applied bisphosphonates in reducing MBL [103,104,105]. In the near future, a biological analysis approach combining genomic with clinical data including bone structure will be able to explain the mechanism of corticalization [102].
The arrangement of implant types from causing the least peri-implant bone corticalization at 5 and 10 years to the implant causing the most corticalization does not reflect the same arrangement of implant types relative to marginal bone loss (Figure 5). Thus, the relationship is not a simple one of the type given implant = defined bone loss, and yet, this would be supported by the corticalization index value. However, when considering all 2700 implants, the association of corticalization with marginal bone loss is statistically highly significant (p < 0.001). Therefore, the study material here was divided differently (see Table 4). The names of the implants were discarded, and the design features were taken, and thus, the implants were combined into groups with common design features.
It is interesting to note that one-piece implants are not associated with the smallest MBLs, despite not having a micro-gap or the possibility of bacterial contamination in the gingival sulcus and junctional epithelium [106]. Perhaps this is due to the fact that these implants are narrower than two-part implants and can be used in a narrower alveolar crest. Probably, the smaller volume of the bone base is prone to atrophy due to limited bone vascularization and mechanical reasons even though there is no contamination from the microgap. On the other hand, it is not surprising that implants inserted subcrestally have low MBL and low corticalization values [107]. Considering the 10-year follow-up period, these 2 characteristics indicate a good prognosis for subcrestal implants. Prosthetic work placed on such implants leaves adequate biological space for good marginal periodontal function [108], and there is certainly more bone around them from the start than if one-piece implants are used. This ensures permanent maintenance of the peri-implant bone level [109]. When considering the significance of the micro-thread implant neck, it should be noted that the MBL observed in this study is slightly lower than in studies known from the literature [110,111]. At the same time, these studies here confirmed the effectiveness of micro-thread use in minimizing MBL over a 10-year period of functional loading. However, there was no significant change in the peri-implant jawbone cortication of micro-thread implants. The interaction of thread parameters has a significant influence on the peak compressive and tensile strains at the cancellous as well cortical bone. Body-related parameters are more effective on the peak compressive strain at the cortical interface only [112]. The results of this work here seem to confirm these results from the numerical analysis. CI and MBL proceed independently of the implant body, or in other words, alternative further features determine corticalization and marginal bone loss (general health, osteopenia, sarcopenia, dietary supplements taken, drug or behavioral weight loss, details of prosthetic work, occlusion, parafunctions, history of prosthetic repairs, additional dental treatment, saliva composition and active protein content, overactive tongue, etc.). The high MBL (and disparate CI results) observed with rounded apex hole implants seems to be more related to the fact that they are cylindrical implants without threads and with no modifications in the neck area rather than to the effect of the apex hole on the condition of the neck peri-implant bone.
Single crowns do not cause bone structure changes around the implants on which they are set. At the same time, they characterize low marginal bone loss. In cases loaded with bridges, lower measures of corticalization and lower MBL were noted at 5 years than in overdentures and compared to splinted crowns at 10 years. In the case of works using switching platforms, it was noted that corticalization values are always lower than in works without prosthetic platform switching. No differences were noted in terms of MBL. Among the multitude of implant design features and series of prosthetic solutions considered, it should be noted that the lowest long-term bone loss was observed in cases of implant loading with bridges. In contrast, the highest MBL was recorded in cases of splinted crowns. These changes were accompanied by corresponding CI values (higher in high MBL and lower in low MBL). Surprisingly, platform switching was not noted to affect MBL, but there was a significantly lower CI with such implants. However, MBL in the platform-switched prosthetic was lower than total MBL at the 10-year follow-up.
Marginal bone loss has been postulated to have a multi-factorial etiology [113] and can be considered to occur early or late in the lifetime of an implant. It is certain that within the first year after placement, MBL observed is a consequence of bone remodeling subsequent to surgical and prosthetic work [56] as well early loading challenges undertaken by an implant and its associated prosthesis [113,114]. It has been known for a long time that smoking as well as previous history of periodontitis are associated with peri-implantitis and may represent risk factors for this disease [115]. Given the role of adaptive bone remodeling, corticalization may be influenced by infection as a barrier for oral microflora invasion. Over the longer term, the cumulative effect of chronic etiological factors that are immunological, environmental, patient-related factors such as motivation, smoking, para- or disfunctions, infection and inflammation, as well the influence of the surgeon or prosthodontist can affect the increase of corticalization and bone loss in long-term observation [113,114,116,117]. Due to the poorly studied phenomenon of corticalization in dental implantology, the authors speculate that the phenomenon of increased bone structure density itself may be heterogeneous. They would not be surprised if it turns out that some specific form of corticalization or the degree of its severity may be prognostically favorable, while another form may be unfavorable, as appears to be the case after this study.
Corticalization index increasing with age (although observed in 5-year follow-up), rising TSH levels and decreasing serum calcium levels seem to support the negative significance of the peri-implant bone corticalization phenomenon. These selected markers similarly behave with the progression of the aging process [118,119]. In this regard, the matter of interpreting the observed phenomenon in bone is not clear. Only a narrow fragment of possible systemic effects on bone has been examined. However, it is a contribution to further interesting research.
The conclusions of this work cannot be radical. The suspicion of corticalization as an unfavorable predictor for the development of marginal bone loss is based on several hundred implants observed over a 10-year period. This, unfortunately, confirms previous suspicions [79]. Undoubtedly, to establish more certain relationships [120,121,122], studies should be conducted on a larger number of implants. This kind of research is prompted by the relationship noted here between low MBL and surprisingly high CI with V shape and reverse butteress threaded implants. Multicenter studies are also needed. Different surgical and prosthetic protocols are worth testing. Both authors of this study believe that other (easier and widely available) techniques for assessing the corticalization phenomenon in peri-implant bone should also be tried.

5. Conclusions

In the scope of the study, it can be concluded that the phenomenon of peri-implant jawbone corticalization clearly seems to be a condition that is unfavorable for the future fate of bone-anchored implants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.; data curation, T.W.; formal analysis, T.W.; funding acquisition, M.K.; investigation, T.W.; methodology, T.W.; resources, T.W.; software, T.W.; supervision, M.K.; validation, T.W.; visualization, M.K. and T.W.; writing—original draft, M.K.; writing—review and editing, T.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Medical University of Lodz (grant numbers 503/5-061-02/503-51-001-18, 503/5-061-02/503-51-001-17, and 503/5-061-02/503-51-002-18).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Lodz, PL (protocol no. RNN 485/11/KB and date of approval: 14 June 2011).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data on which this study is based will be made available upon request at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcin-Kozakiewicz (accessed on 22 October 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chęcińska, K.; Chęciński, M.; Sikora, M.; Nowak, Z.; Karwan, S.; Chlubek, D. The Effect of Zirconium Dioxide (ZrO2) Nanoparticles Addition on the Mechanical Parameters of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Polymers 2022, 14, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pokrowiecki, R.; Szałaj, U.; Fudala, D.; Zaręba, T.; Wojnarowicz, J.; Łojkowski, W.; Tyski, S.; Dowgierd, K.; Mielczarek, A. Dental Implant Healing Screws as Temporary Oral Drug Delivery Systems for Decrease of Infections in the Area of the Head and Neck. Int. J. Nanomed. 2022, 17, 1679–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hadzik, J.; Kubasiewicz-Ross, P.; Simka, W.; Gębarowski, T.; Barg, E.; Cieśla-Niechwiadowicz, A.; Szajna, A.T.; Szajna, E.; Gedrange, T.; Kozakiewicz, M.; et al. Fractal Dimension and Texture Analysis in the Assessment of Experimental Laser-Induced Periodic Surface Structures (LIPSS) Dental Implant Surface—In Vitro Study Preliminary Report. Materials 2022, 15, 2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wach, T.; Kozakiewicz, M. Comparison of Two Clinical Procedures in Patient Affected with Bone Deficit in Posterior Mandible. Dent. Med. Probl. 2016, 53, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Dowgierd, K.; Borowiec, M.; Kozakiewicz, M. Bone changes on lateral cephalograms and CBCT during treatment of maxillary narrowing using palatal osteodistraction with bone-anchored appliances. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 46, 2069–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dowgierd, K.; Lipowicz, A.; Kulesa-Mrowiecka, M.; Wolański, W.; Linek, P.; Myśliwiec, A. Efficacy of immediate physiotherapy after surgical release of zygomatico-coronoid ankylosis in a young child: A case report. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2022, 38, 3187–3193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dowgierd, K.; Pokrowiecki, R.; Borowiec, M.; Sokolowska, Z.; Dowgierd, M.; Wos, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Krakowczyk, Ł. Protocol and Evaluation of 3D-Planned Microsurgical and Dental Implant Reconstruction of Maxillary Cleft Critical Size Defects in Adolescents and Young Adults. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Michalak, P.; Wyszyńska-Pawelec, G.; Szuta, M.; Hajto-Bryk, J.; Zapała, J.; Zarzecka, J.K. Fractures of the Craniofacial Skeleton in the Elderly: Retrospective Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Iezzi, G.; Pecora, G.; Scarano, A.; Perrotti, V.; Piattelli, A. Immediately loaded screw implant retrieved after a 12-year loading period: A histologic and histomorphometric case report. J. Osseointegration 2009, 1, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tumedei, M.; Piattelli, A.; Degidi, M.; Mangano, C.; Iezzi, G. A Narrative Review of the Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation of the Peri-Implant Bone in Loaded and Unloaded Dental Implants. A 30-Year Experience (1988–2018). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yonezawa, D.; Piattelli, A.; Favero, R.; Ferri, M.; Iezzi, G.; Botticelli, D. Bone Healing at Functionally Loaded and Unloaded Screw-Shaped Implants Supporting Single Crowns: A Histomorphometric Study in Humans. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Mangano, F.G.; Pires, J.T.; Shibli, J.A.; Mijiritsky, E.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A.; Mangano, C. Early Bone Response to Dual Acid-Etched and Machined Dental Implants Placed in the Posterior Maxilla: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Human Study. Implant Dent. 2017, 26, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mangano, C.; Piattelli, A.; Mortellaro, C.; Mangano, F.; Perrotti, V.; Iezzi, G. Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Response in Implants Retrieved for Fracture After More Than 20 Years of Loading: A Case Series. J. Oral Implantol. 2015, 41, 414–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Traini, T.; Mangano, C.; Perrotti, V.; Caputi, S.; Coelho, P.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G. Human bone reactions around implants with adverse interfacial bone strain over 20 years. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2014, 102, 1342–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Piattelli, A.; Artese, L.; Penitente, E.; Iaculli, F.; Degidi, M.; Mangano, C.; Shibli, J.A.; Coelho, P.G.; Perrotti, V.; Iezzi, G. Osteocyte density in the peri-implant bone of implants retrieved after different time periods (4 weeks to 27 years). J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2014, 102, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A.; Mangano, C.; Shibli, J.A.; Vantaggiato, G.; Frosecchi, M.; Di Chiara, C.; Perrotti, V. Peri-implant bone tissues around retrieved human implants after time periods longer than 5 years: A retrospective histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of 8 cases. Odontology 2014, 102, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mangano, C.; Piattelli, A.; Mangano, F.; Rustichelli, F.; Shibli, J.A.; Iezzi, G.; Giuliani, A. Histological and synchrotron radiation-based computed microtomography study of 2 human-retrieved direct laser metal formed titanium implants. Implant Dent. 2013, 22, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mangano, C.; Perrotti, V.; Raspanti, M.; Mangano, F.; Luongo, G.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G. Human Dental Implants with a Sandblasted, Acid-Etched Surface Retrieved After 5 and 10 Years: A Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy Evaluation of Two Cases. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 917–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Iezzi, G.; Degidi, M.; Shibli, J.; Vantaggiato, G.; Piattelli, A.; Perrotti, V. Bone Response to Dental Implants After a 3- to 10-Year Loading Period: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Report of Four Cases. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Iezzi, G.; Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A.; Shibli, J.A.; Perrotti, V. A Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation of Retrieved Human Implants with a Wettable, Highly Hydrophilic, Hierarchically Microstructured Surface: A retrospective analysis of 14 implants. Implant Dent. 2013, 22, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Iezzi, G.; Vantaggiato, G.; Shibli, J.A.; Fiera, E.; Falco, A.; Piattelli, A.; Perrotti, V. Machined and sandblasted human dental implants retrieved after 5 years: A histologic and histomorphometric analysis of three cases. Quintessence Int. 2012, 43, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Degidi, M.; Perrotti, V.; Piattelli, A.; Iezzi, G. Mineralized bone-implant contact and implant stability quotient in 16 human implants retrieved after early healing periods: A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2010, 25, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  23. Shibli, J.A.; Mangano, C.; D’Avila, S.; Piattelli, A.; Pecora, G.E.; Mangano, F.; Onuma, T.; Cardoso, L.A.; Ferrari, D.S.; Aguiar, K.C.; et al. Influence of direct laser fabrication implant topography on type IV bone: A histomorphometric study in humans. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2010, 93, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shibli, J.A.; Grassi, S.; Piattelli, A.; Pecora, G.E.; Ferrari, D.S.; Onuma, T.; D’Avila, S.; Coelho, P.G.; Barros, R.; Iezzi, G. Histomorphometric Evaluation of Bioceramic Molecular Impregnated and Dual Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces in the Human Posterior Maxilla. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2010, 12, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Vantaggiato, G.; Iezzi, G.; Fiera, E.; Perrotti, V.; Piattelli, A. Histologic and Histomorphometric Report of Three Immediately Loaded Screw Implants Retrieved from Man After a Three-Year Loading Period. Implant Dent. 2008, 17, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Di Stefano, D.; Iezzi, G.; Scarano, A.; Perrotti, V.; Piattelli, A. Immediately Loaded Blade Implant Retrieved from a Man After a 20-year Loading Period: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Case Report. J. Oral Implantol. 2006, 32, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Romanos, G.E.; Testori, T.; Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A. Histologic and Histomorphometric Findings from Retrieved, Immediately Occlusally Loaded Implants in Humans. J. Periodontol. 2005, 76, 1823–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Degidi, M.; Scarano, A.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Histologic and Histomorphometric Analysis of an Immediately Loaded Implant Retrieved from Man after 14 Months of Loading. J. Long-Term Eff. Med. Implant. 2005, 15, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Degidi, M.; Petrone, G.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Histologic evaluation of a human immediately loaded titanium implant with a porous anodized surface. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2002, 4, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Piattelli, A.; Scarano, A.; Piattelli, M.; Bertolai, R.; Panzoni, E. Histologic Aspects of the Bone and Soft Tissues Surrounding Three Titanium Non-Submerged Plasma-Sprayed Implants Retrieved at Autopsy: A Case Report. J. Periodontol. 1997, 68, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Trisi, P.; Quaranta, M.; Emanuelli, M.; Piattelli, A. A Light Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, and Laser Scanning Microscopy Analysis of Retrieved Blade Implants After 7 to 20 Years of Clinical Function. A Report of 3 Cases. J. Periodontol. 1993, 64, 374–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Shibli, J.A.; Mangano, C.; Mangano, F.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Cassoni, A.; Bechara, K.; Ferreia, J.D.B.; Dottore, A.M.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Bone-to-Implant Contact Around Immediately Loaded Direct Laser Metal-Forming Transitional Implants in Human Posterior Maxilla. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, 732–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A.; Shibli, J.A.; Perrotti, V.; Iezzi, G. Early bone formation around immediately restored implants with and without occlusal contact: A human histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Case report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 734–739. [Google Scholar]
  34. Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A.; Shibli, J.A.; Perrotti, V.; Iezzi, G. Bone formation around immediately loaded and submerged dental implants with a modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface after 4 and 8 weeks: A human histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 896–901. [Google Scholar]
  35. Degidi, M.; Scarano, A.; Petrone, G.; Piattelli, A. Histologic Analysis of Clinically Retrieved Immediately Loaded Titanium Implants: A Report of 11 Cases. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2003, 5, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Piattelli, A.; Trisi, P.; Romasco, N.; Emanuelli, M. Histologic analysis of a screw implant retrieved from man: Influence of early loading and primary stability. J. Oral Implantol. 1993, 19, 303–306. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rasperini, G.; Siciliano, V.I.; Cafiero, C.; Salvi, G.E.; Blasi, A.; Aglietta, M. Crestal Bone Changes at Teeth and Implants in Periodontally Healthy and Periodontally Compromised Patients. A 10-Year Comparative Case-Series Study. J. Periodontol. 2014, 85, e152–e159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Degidi, M.; Scarano, A.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Histologic Analysis of an Immediately Loaded Implant Retrieved after 2 Months. J. Oral Implantol. 2005, 31, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Traini, T.; Pecora, G.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A. Preferred Collagen Fiber Orientation in Human Peri-implant Bone After a Short- and Long-term Loading Period: A Case Report. J. Oral Implantol. 2006, 32, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Traini, T.; Degidi, M.; Caputi, S.; Strocchi, R.; Di Iorio, D.; Piattelli, A. Collagen Fiber Orientation in Human Peri-Implant Bone Around Immediately Loaded and Unloaded Titanium Dental Implants. J. Periodontol. 2005, 76, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Traini, T.; Degidi, M.; Iezzi, G.; Artese, L.; Piattelli, A. Comparative evaluation of the peri-implant bone tissue mineral density around unloaded titanium dental implants. J. Dent. 2007, 35, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gandolfi, M.G.; Zamparini, F.; Iezzi, G.; Degidi, M.; Botticelli, D.; Piattelli, A.; Prati, C. Microchemical and Micromorphologic ESEM-EDX Analysis of Bone Mineralization at the Thread Interface in Human Dental Implants Retrieved for Mechanical Complications after 2 Months to 17 Years. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2018, 38, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Tam, C.; Harrison, J.; Reed, R.; Cruickshank, B. Bone apposition rate as an index of bone metabolism. Metabolism 1978, 27, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pazzaglia, U.E.; Congiu, T.; Marchese, M.; Spagnuolo, F.; Quacci, D. Morphometry and Patterns of Lamellar Bone in Human Haversian Systems. Anat. Rec. Adv. Integr. Anat. Evol. Biol. 2012, 295, 1421–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kungsadalpipob, K.; Supanimitkul, K.; Manopattanasoontorn, S.; Sophon, N.; Tangsathian, T.; Arunyanak, S.P. The lack of keratinized mucosa is associated with poor peri-implant tissue health: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Implant Dent. 2020, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Albrektsson, T.; Brånemark, P.-I.; Hansson, H.-A.; Lindström, J. Osseointegrated Titanium Implants: Requirements for Ensuring a Long-Lasting, Direct Bone-to-Implant Anchorage in Man. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1981, 52, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Brånemark, P.; Adell, R.; Albrektsson, T.; Lekholm, U.; Lundkvist, S.; Rockler, B. Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness. Biomaterials 1983, 4, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Linkevicius, T.; Puisys, A.; Linkeviciene, L.; Peciuliene, V.; Schlee, M. Crestal Bone Stability around Implants with Horizontally Matching Connection after Soft Tissue Thickening: A Prospective Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vlachodimou, E.; Fragkioudakis, I.; Vouros, I. Is There an Association between the Gingival Phenotype and the Width of Keratinized Gingiva? A Systematic Review. Dent. J. 2021, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baer, R.A.; Nölken, R.; Colic, S.; Heydecke, G.; Mirzakhanian, C.; Behneke, A.; Behneke, N.; Gottesman, E.; Ottria, L.; Pozzi, A.; et al. Immediately provisionalized tapered conical connection implants for single-tooth restorations in the maxillary esthetic zone: A 5-year prospective single-cohort multicenter analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 3593–3604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kinaia, B.M.; Shah, M.; Neely, A.L.; Goodis, H.E. Crestal Bone Level Changes Around Immediately Placed Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses With at Least 12 Months’ Follow-Up After Functional Loading. J. Periodontol. 2014, 85, 1537–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Linkevicius, T.; Linkevicius, R.; Gineviciute, E.; Alkimavicius, J.; Mazeikiene, A.; Linkeviciene, L. The influence of new immediate tissue level abutment on crestal bone stability of subcrestally placed implants: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Linkevicius, T.; Puisys, A.; Linkevicius, R.; Alkimavicius, J.; Gineviciute, E.; Linkeviciene, L. The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2020, 22, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kołaciński, M.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Materka, A. Textural entropy as a potential feature for quantitative assessment of jaw bone healing process. Arch. Med. Sci. 2015, 11, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Dewan, H.; Robaian, A.; Divakar, D.D.; Hegde, S.M.R.; Shankar, S.M.; Poojari, B. Levels of peri-implant sulcular fluid levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and TNF-α among cigarette smokers and non-smokers with peri-implantitis. Technol. Health Care 2022. epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Naveau, A.; Shinmyouzu, K.; Moore, C.; Avivi-Arber, L.; Jokerst, J.; Koka, S. Etiology and Measurement of Peri-Implant Crestal Bone Loss (CBL). J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Bohner, L.; Tortamano, P.; Meier, N.; Gremse, F.; Kleinheinz, J.; Hanisch, M. Trabecular Bone Assessment Using Magnetic-Resonance Imaging: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guenoun, D.; Fouré, A.; Pithioux, M.; Guis, S.; Le Corroller, T.; Mattei, J.-P.; Pauly, V.; Guye, M.; Bernard, M.; Chabrand, P.; et al. Correlative Analysis of Vertebral Trabecular Bone Microarchitecture and Mechanical Properties: A Combined Ultra-High Field (7 Tesla) MRI and Biomechanical Investigation. Spine 2017, 42, E1165–E1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hadrowicz, J.; Hadrowicz, P.; Gesing, A.; Kozakiewicz, M. Age dependent alteration in bone surrounding dental implant. Dent. Med. Probl. 2014, 51, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hadrowicz, P.; Hadrowicz, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Gesing, A. Assessment of Parathyroid Hormone Serum Level as a Predictor for Bone Condition Around Dental Implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, e207–e212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kozakiewicz, M.; Szyszkowski, A. Evaluation of selected prognostic factors in dental implant treatment–two-year follow-up. Dent. Med. Probl. 2014, 51, 439–447. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rózyło-Kalinowska, I. Digital radiography density measurements in differentiation between periapical granulomas and radicular cysts. Med. Sci. Monit. 2007, 13 (Suppl. 1), 129–136. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Szyszkowski, A.; Kozakiewicz, M. Effect of Implant-Abutment Connection Type on Bone Around Dental Implants in Long-Term Observation: Internal cone versus internal hex. Implant Dent. 2019, 28, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Wach, T.; Kozakiewicz, M. Are recent available blended collagen-calcium phosphate better than collagen alone or crystalline calcium phosphate? Radiotextural analysis of a 1-year clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 3711–3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Grocholewicz, K.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J.; Aniko-Włodarczyk, M.; Preuss, O.; Trybek, G.; Sobolewska, E.; Lipski, M. Panoramic radiographs and quantitative ultrasound of the radius and phalanx III to assess bone mineral status in postmenopausal women. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bayrakdar, I.S.; Orhan, K.; Çelik, Ö.; Bilgir, E.; Sağlam, H.; Kaplan, F.A.; Görür, S.A.; Odabaş, A.; Aslan, A.F.; Różyło-Kalinowska, I. A U-Net Approach to Apical Lesion Segmentation on Panoramic Radiographs. BioMed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 7035367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bilgir, E.; Bayrakdar, I.; Çelik, Ö.; Orhan, K.; Akkoca, F.; Sağlam, H.; Odabaş, A.; Aslan, A.F.; Ozcetin, C.; Kıllı, M.; et al. An artificial intelligence approach to automatic tooth detection and numbering in panoramic radiographs. BMC Med. Imaging 2021, 21, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Srebrzyńska-Witek, A.; Koszowski, R.; Różyło-Kalinowska, I. Relationship between anterior mandibular bone thickness and the angulation of incisors and canines—A CBCT study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 1567–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Moshfeghi, M.; Safi, Y.; Różyło-Kalinowska, I.; Gandomi, S. Does the size of an object containing dental implant affect the expression of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography imaging? Head Face Med. 2022, 18, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bohner, L.; Hanisch, M.; Sesma, N.; Blanck-Lubarsch, M.; Kleinheinz, J. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental materials: A systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2022, 51, 20210450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chang, G.; Honig, S.; Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Chu, K.K.; Rajapakse, C.S.; Egol, K.; Xia, D.; Saha, P.K.; Regatte, R.R. 7 Tesla MRI of bone microarchitecture discriminates between women without and with fragility fractures who do not differ by bone mineral density. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 2015, 33, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Guenoun, D.; Pithioux, M.; Souplet, J.-C.; Guis, S.; Le Corroller, T.; Fouré, A.; Pauly, V.; Mattei, J.-P.; Bernard, M.; Guye, M.; et al. Assessment of proximal femur microarchitecture using ultra-high field MRI at 7 Tesla. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2020, 101, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Krug, R.; Carballido-Gamio, J.; Banerjee, S.; Burghardt, A.J.; Link, T.M.; Majumdar, S. In vivo ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone microarchitecture at 7 T. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2008, 27, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rajapakse, C.S.; Magland, J.; Zhang, X.H.; Liu, X.S.; Wehrli, S.L.; Guo, X.E.; Wehrli, F.W. Implications of noise and resolution on mechanical properties of trabecular bone estimated by image-based finite-element analysis. J. Orthop. Res. 2009, 27, 1263–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Rajapakse, C.S.; Kobe, E.; Batzdorf, A.S.; Hast, M.W.; Wehrli, F.W. Accuracy of MRI-based finite element assessment of distal tibia compared to mechanical testing. Bone 2018, 108, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Seifert, A.C.; Wehrli, F.W. Solid-State Quantitative 1H and 31P MRI of Cortical Bone in Humans. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2016, 14, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dudek, D.; Kozakiewicz, M. Szerokość beleczek kostnych w szczęce i żuchwie człowieka na podstawie cyfrowych radiologicznych zdjęć wewnąrzustnych [Bone trabecula width in the human maxilla and mandible based on digital intraoral radiographs]. Mag. Stomatol. 2012, 236, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rózyło-Kalinowska, I.; Michalska, A.; Burdan, F. Optimization of analysis of skeletal ossification of laboratory animals by means of digital radiography software options. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska 2003, 58, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kozakiewicz, M.; Skorupska, M.; Wach, T. What Does Bone Corticalization around Dental Implants Mean in Light of Ten Years of Follow-Up? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kozakiewicz, M. Measures of Corticalization. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kozakiewicz, M.; Wilamski, M. Technika standaryzacji wewnątrzustnych zdjęć rentgenowskich [Standardization technique for intraoral radiographs]. Czas. Stomatol. 1999, 52, 673–677. [Google Scholar]
  82. Szczypiński, P.M.; Strzelecki, M.; Materka, A.; Klepaczko, A. MaZda–The Software Package for Textural Analysis of Biomedical Images. In Computers in Medical Activity; Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 65, pp. 73–84. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kozakiewicz, M.; Bogusiak, K.; Hanclik, M.; Denkowski, M.; Arkuszewski, P. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: A comparison between four methods of geometric alignment. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2008, 37, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kozakiewicz, M.; Szymor, P.; Wach, T. Influence of General Mineral Condition on Collagen-Guided Alveolar Crest Augmentation. Materials 2020, 13, 3649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kozakiewicz, M.; Wach, T. New Oral Surgery Materials for Bone Reconstruction—A Comparison of Five Bone Substitute Materials for Dentoalveolar Augmentation. Materials 2020, 13, 2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wach, T.; Kozakiewicz, M. Fast-Versus Slow-Resorbable Calcium Phosphate Bone Substitute Materials—Texture Analysis after 12 Months of Observation. Materials 2020, 13, 3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Haralick, R.M. Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc. IEEE 1979, 67, 786–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Materka, A.; Strzelecki, M. Texture Analysis Methods–A Review, COST B11 Report. Presented at MC Meeting and Workshop, Brussels, Belgium, 25 June 1998; Technical University of Lodz: Lodz, Poland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  89. Eriksson, R.A.; Albrektsson, T.; Magnusson, B. Assessment of Bone Viability After Heat Trauma: A Histological, Histochemical and Vital Microscopic Study in the Rabbit. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1984, 18, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Albrektsson, T.; Dahlin, C.; Jemt, T.; Sennerby, L.; Turri, A.; Wennerberg, A. Is Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants the Result of a Provoked Foreign Body Reaction? Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Buser, D.; Janner, S.F.M.; Wittneben, J.-G.; Brägger, U.; Ramseier, C.A.; Salvi, G.E. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Szczypinski, P.M.; Klepaczko, A.; Kociolek, M. QMaZda—Software tools for image analysis and pattern recognition. In Proceedings of the 2017 Signal Processing: Algorithms, Architectures, Arrangements, and Applications (SPA), Poznan, Poland, 20–22 September 2017; pp. 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Albrektsson, T.; Tengvall, P.; Amengual-Peñafiel, L.; Coli, P.; Kotsakis, G.; Cochran, D.L. Implications of considering peri-implant bone loss a disease, a narrative review. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2022, 24, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Roccuzzo, M.; De Angelis, N.; Bonino, L.; Aglietta, M. Ten-year results of a three-arm prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: Implant loss and radiographic bone loss. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2010, 21, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pandey, C.; Rokaya, D.; Bhattarai, B.P. Contemporary Concepts in Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Review. BioMed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 6170452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Papaspyridakos, P.; Chen, C.-J.; Singh, M.; Weber, H.-P.; Gallucci, G.O. Success criteria in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Amengual-Peñafiel, L.; Córdova, L.A.; Jara-Sepúlveda, M.C.; Brañes-Aroca, M.; Marchesani-Carrasco, F.; Cartes-Velásquez, R. Osteoimmunology drives dental implant osseointegration: A new paradigm for implant dentistry. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2021, 57, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Chen, Z.; Wu, C.; Xiao, Y. Convergence of Osteoimmunology and Immunomodulation for the Development and Assessment of Bone Biomaterials. In The Immune Response to Implanted Materials and Devices; Corradetti, B., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Negrescu, A.-M.; Cimpean, A. The State of the Art and Prospects for Osteoimmunomodulatory Biomaterials. Materials 2021, 14, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Lin, W.; Li, Q.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, X.; Qi, X.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, H.; Zhang, S.; et al. Mapping the immune microenvironment for mandibular alveolar bone homeostasis at single-cell resolution. Bone Res. 2021, 9, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Atcha, H.; Meli, V.S.; Davis, C.T.; Brumm, K.T.; Anis, S.; Chin, J.; Jiang, K.; Pathak, M.M.; Liu, W.F. Crosstalk Between CD11b and Piezo1 Mediates Macrophage Responses to Mechanical Cues. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 689397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Refai, A.K.; Cochran, D.L. Harnessing Omics Sciences and Biotechnologies in Understanding Osseointegration—Personalized Dental Implant Therapy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, e27–e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tengvall, P.; Skoglund, B.; Askendal, A.; Aspenberg, P. Surface immobilized bisphosphonate improves stainless-steel screw fixation in rats. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 2133–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Abtahi, J.; Henefalk, G.; Aspenberg, P. Impact of a zoledronate coating on early post-surgical implant stability and marginal bone resorption in the maxilla—A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019, 30, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Abtahi, J.; Henefalk, G.; Aspenberg, P. Randomised trial of bisphosphonate-coated dental implants: Radiographic follow-up after five years of loading. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 45, 1564–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kim, J.-J.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, J.C.; Lee, J.-B.; Yeo, I.-S.L. Biological Responses to the Transitional Area of Dental Implants: Material- and Structure-Dependent Responses of Peri-Implant Tissue to Abutments. Materials 2020, 13, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Palacios-Garzón, N.; Velasco-Ortega, E.; López-López, J. Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials 2019, 12, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Piattelli, A.; Vrespa, G.; Petrone, G.; Iezzi, G.; Annibali, S.; Scarano, A. Role of the Microgap Between Implant and Abutment: A Retrospective Histologic Evaluation in Monkeys. J. Periodontol. 2003, 74, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Linkevicius, T.; Apse, P.; Grybauskas, S.; Puisys, A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 712–719. [Google Scholar]
  110. Aslroosta, H.; Akbari, S.; Naddafpour, N.; Adnaninia, S.T.; Khorsand, A.; Esfahani, N.N. Effect of microthread design on the preservation of marginal bone around immediately placed implants: A 5-years prospective cohort study. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Covani, U.; Chiappe, G.; Bosco, M.; Orlando, B.; Quaranta, A.; Barone, A. A 10-Year Evaluation of Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets: A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Periodontol. 2012, 83, 1226–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Sheikhan, E.; Kadkhodazadeh, M.; Amid, R.; Lafzi, A. Interactive Effects of Five Dental Implant Design Parameters on the Peak Strains at the Interfacial Bone: A Finite Element Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2022, 37, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Bryant, S.R. Oral Implant Outcomes Predicted by Age- and Site-Specific Aspects of Bone Condition. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  114. Linkevicius, T.; Puisys, A.; Vindasiute, E.; Linkeviciene, L.; Apse, P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 24, 1179–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Carcuac, O.; Jansson, L. Peri-implantitis in a specialist clinic of periodontology. Clinical features and risk indicators. Swed. Dent. J. 2010, 34, 53–61. [Google Scholar]
  116. Roos-Jansåker, A.-M. Long time follow up of implant therapy and treatment of peri-implantitis. Swed. Dent. J. Suppl. 2007, 188, 7–66. [Google Scholar]
  117. Fransson, C.; Lekholm, U.; Jemt, T.; Berglundh, T. Prevalence of subjects with progressive bone loss at implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2005, 16, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gesing, A. The thyroid gland and the process of aging. Thyroid Res. 2015, 8, A8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Biondi, B.; Cooper, D.S. The Clinical Significance of Subclinical Thyroid Dysfunction. Endocr. Rev. 2008, 29, 76–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Borowska, M.; Bębas, E.; Szarmach, J.; Oczeretko, E. Multifractal characterization of healing process after bone loss. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 2019, 52, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Borowska, M.; Szarmach, J.; Oczeretko, E. Fractal texture analysis of the healing process after bone loss. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 2015, 46, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pociask, E.; Nurzynska, K.; Obuchowicz, R.; Bałon, P.; Uryga, D.; Strzelecki, M.; Izworski, A.; Piórkowski, A. Differential Diagnosis of Cysts and Granulomas Supported by Texture Analysis of Intraoral Radiographs. Sensors 2021, 21, 7481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The appearance of the dental implants compared in this study, in alphabetical order: (a) AB Dental Devices I5; (b) ADIN Dental Implants Touareg; (c) Alpha Bio ARRP; (d) Alpha Bio ATI; (e) Alpha Bio DFI; (f) Alpha Bio OCI; (g) Alpha Bio SFB; (h) Alpha Bio SPI; (i) Argon Medical Productions K3pro Rapid; (j) Bego Semados RI; (k) Dentium Super Line; (l) Friadent Ankylos C/X; (m) Implant Direct InterActive; (n) Implant Direct Legacy 3; (o) MIS BioCom M4; (p) MIS C1; (q) MIS Seven; (r) MIS UNO One Piece; (s) Osstem Implant Company GS III; (t) SGS Dental P7N; (u) TBR Implanté; (v) Wolf Dental Conical Screw-Type.
Figure 1. The appearance of the dental implants compared in this study, in alphabetical order: (a) AB Dental Devices I5; (b) ADIN Dental Implants Touareg; (c) Alpha Bio ARRP; (d) Alpha Bio ATI; (e) Alpha Bio DFI; (f) Alpha Bio OCI; (g) Alpha Bio SFB; (h) Alpha Bio SPI; (i) Argon Medical Productions K3pro Rapid; (j) Bego Semados RI; (k) Dentium Super Line; (l) Friadent Ankylos C/X; (m) Implant Direct InterActive; (n) Implant Direct Legacy 3; (o) MIS BioCom M4; (p) MIS C1; (q) MIS Seven; (r) MIS UNO One Piece; (s) Osstem Implant Company GS III; (t) SGS Dental P7N; (u) TBR Implanté; (v) Wolf Dental Conical Screw-Type.
Jcm 11 07189 g001
Figure 2. Image data acquisition method for texture analysis in intraoral radiographs. ROIs highlighted in yellow are sites in the alveolar crest distant from the dental implants (reference). ROIs marked in green are sites examined along the neck portion of the implants and represent, respectively: radiographs taken immediately prior to prosthetic work—initial ROI; radiographs taken after five years of functional loading—5 years ROI; radiographs taken after ten years of functional loading—10 years ROI. The data extracted from these ROIs were later analyzed in freeware MaZda 4.6 [79,80,82] and used to calculate the corticalization index.
Figure 2. Image data acquisition method for texture analysis in intraoral radiographs. ROIs highlighted in yellow are sites in the alveolar crest distant from the dental implants (reference). ROIs marked in green are sites examined along the neck portion of the implants and represent, respectively: radiographs taken immediately prior to prosthetic work—initial ROI; radiographs taken after five years of functional loading—5 years ROI; radiographs taken after ten years of functional loading—10 years ROI. The data extracted from these ROIs were later analyzed in freeware MaZda 4.6 [79,80,82] and used to calculate the corticalization index.
Jcm 11 07189 g002
Figure 3. The results of peri-implant bone corticalization assessment (corticalization index, blue line, data without a unit) and marginal bone loss (red line, data in millimeters). There was a statistically significant increase in the values of both variables at each stage of the study. Moreover, it was noted that there was a directly proportional relationship of marginal bone loss with the progression of corticalization at 5 years and 10 years of functional loading of the implants. Abbreviations: n.r.—no relationship.
Figure 3. The results of peri-implant bone corticalization assessment (corticalization index, blue line, data without a unit) and marginal bone loss (red line, data in millimeters). There was a statistically significant increase in the values of both variables at each stage of the study. Moreover, it was noted that there was a directly proportional relationship of marginal bone loss with the progression of corticalization at 5 years and 10 years of functional loading of the implants. Abbreviations: n.r.—no relationship.
Jcm 11 07189 g003
Figure 4. An example of the relationship found between patients’ general condition (TSH: thyrotropin serum level in mU/L) and the corticalization index. Both relationships are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. An example of the relationship found between patients’ general condition (TSH: thyrotropin serum level in mU/L) and the corticalization index. Both relationships are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Jcm 11 07189 g004
Figure 5. The results obtained for the types of dental implants studied. The charts on the left show the results of the corticalization evaluation (five and ten years). The results here are arranged from lowest mean (top) to highest mean (bottom). On the right are the results of marginal bone loss arranged in the same order as for corticalization—it can be seen that bone loss does not absolutely correspond to corticalization.
Figure 5. The results obtained for the types of dental implants studied. The charts on the left show the results of the corticalization evaluation (five and ten years). The results here are arranged from lowest mean (top) to highest mean (bottom). On the right are the results of marginal bone loss arranged in the same order as for corticalization—it can be seen that bone loss does not absolutely correspond to corticalization.
Jcm 11 07189 g005
Table 1. Design features of dental implant used in this study (www.spotimplant.com/en/ (access on 21 July 2022)). Alphabetical order of the implant names.
Table 1. Design features of dental implant used in this study (www.spotimplant.com/en/ (access on 21 July 2022)). Alphabetical order of the implant names.
Manufacturer
Implant Type
Titanium
Alloy
LevelConnection
Type
Connection ShapeNeck
Shape
Neck
Microthreads
Body
Shape
Body
Threads
Apex
Shape
Apex
Hole
Apex
Groove
AB Dental Devices
I5
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightNoTaperedSquareFlatNo HoleYes
ADIN Dental Implants
Touareg
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedSquareFlatNo HoleYes
Alpha Bio
ARRP
Grade 5Tissue LevelCustomOne Piece AbutmentStraightNoTaperedReverse ButtressConeNo HoleNo
Alpha Bio
ATI
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesStraightSquareFlatNo HoleYes
Alpha Bio
DFI
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedSquareFlatNo HoleYes
Alpha Bio
OCI
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightNoStraightNo ThreadsDomeRoundNo
Alpha Bio
SFB
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightNoTaperedV ShapedFlatNo HoleYes
Alpha Bio
SPI
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedSquareFlatNo HoleYes
Argon Medical Prod.
K3pro Rapid
Grade 4SubcrestalInternalConicalStraightYesTaperedV ShapedDomeNo HoleYes
Bego Semados
RI
Grade 4Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedReverse ButtressConeNo HoleYes
Dentium
Super Line
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalConicalStraightNoTaperedButtressDomeNo HoleYes
Friadent
Ankylos C/X
Grade 4SubcrestalInternalConicalStraightNoTaperedV ShapedDomeNo HoleYes
Implant Direct
InterActive
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalConicalStraightYesTaperedReverse ButtressDomeNo HoleYes
Implant Direct
Legacy 3
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedReverse ButtressDomeNo HoleYes
MIS
BioCom M4
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightNoStraightV ShapedFlatNo HoleYes
MIS
C1
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalConicalStraightYesTaperedReverse ButtressDomeNo HoleYes
MIS
Seven
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedReverse ButtressDomeNo HoleYes
MIS
UNO One Piece
Grade 5Tissue LevelCustomOne Piece AbutmentStraightNoTaperedSquareDomeNo HoleYes
Osstem Implant Company
GS III
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalConicalStraightYesTaperedV ShapedDomeNo HoleYes
SGS Dental
P7N
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightYesTaperedV ShapedFlatNo HoleYes
TBR
Implanté
Grade 5Bone LevelInternalOctagonStraightNoStraightNo ThreadsFlatRoundYes
Wolf Dental
Conical Screw-Type
Grade 4Bone LevelInternalHexagonStraightNoTaperedV ShapedConeNo HoleYes
Table 2. The progressive increase in the difference in bone structure of implant-loaded versus reference cancellous bone and the observed relationship with marginal bone loss.
Table 2. The progressive increase in the difference in bone structure of implant-loaded versus reference cancellous bone and the observed relationship with marginal bone loss.
Region of Interest/PeriodCorticalization IndexMarginal Bone Loss [mm]Simple Regression
Reference Cancellous Bone149 ± 1780.00 ± 0.00n.a.
Initial Peri-Implant Observation200 ± 1460.25 ± 0.94n.s.
5 Years Peri-Implant Observation282 ± 1820.83 ± 1.26CC = 0.11; R2 = 1.2%; p < 0.001
10 Years Peri-Implant Observation261 ± 1681.48 ± 2.01CC = 0.12; R2 = 1,4%; p < 0.01
Abbreviations: n.a.—not applicable; n.s.—no statistical significance; CC—correlation coefficient: R2—coefficient of determination.
Table 3. Presentation of included population. Assessment of the impact of baseline epidemiological data on the corticalization index observed in peri-implant bone.
Table 3. Presentation of included population. Assessment of the impact of baseline epidemiological data on the corticalization index observed in peri-implant bone.
Clinical FeatureOption/Value of the FeatureCorticalization Index
Initial5 Years10 Years
SexFemale205 ± 169279 ± 176263 ± 151
Male194 ± 114285 ± 190260 ± 190
Tobacco SmokingNon-Smoker200 ± 152 L283 ± 185257 ± 166 L
Smoker203 ± 91 H272 ±155301 ± 184 H
JawMaxilla175 ± 108 L239 ± 151 L223 ± 148 L
Mandible190 ± 179 H336 ± 203 H302 ± 179 H
Localization in Dental ArchAnterior166 ± 92 L247 ± 163 L226 ± 162 L
Posterior212 ± 174 H295 ± 188 H273 ± 169 H
Jawbone StatusAugmented220 ± 210267 ± 164263 ± 142
Intact193 ± 116286 ± 188261 ± 176
Augmentation TechniqueImplant Neck Bone Chips236 ± 269292 ± 187271 ± 133
Implant Neck Bone Substitute183 ± 107210 ± 138280 ± 211
Bone Substitute Sinus Lift210 ± 143248 ± 138252 ± 135
Age47 ± 13 yearsDirect Relation *Direct Relation *No Relation
Patient Height1.70 ± 0.09 mNo RelationNo RelationInverse Relation *
Patient Weight75 ± 19 KgNo RelationInverse Relation *Inverse Relation *
Body Mass Index26 ± 4No RelationInverse Relation *Inverse Relation *
Serum Thyrotropin1.73 ± 1.07 mU/LDirect Relation *Direct Relation *Direct Relation *
Total Serum Calcium2.39 ± 0.61 mmol/dLInverse Relation *Inverse Relation *Inverse Relation *
Serum Triglycerides1.24 ± 0.57 mmol/LDirect Relation *No RelationNo Relation
H value higher than in other implant design options within observation period (p < 0.05); L value lower than in other implant design options within observation period (p < 0.05); * means significant relationship (p < 0.05) between corticalization index and the clinical quantitative (i.e., numerical) feature.
Table 4. Peri-implant bone feature observed among examined implant designs groups.
Table 4. Peri-implant bone feature observed among examined implant designs groups.
Design ParameterOptionFeatureInitial5 Years10 Years
Titanium Alloy
n = 2196
Grade 4MBL0.00 L0.00 L0.00
CI184 H179 L189
Grade 5MBL0.00 H0.00 H0.91
CI163 L225 H209
Immersion Level
n = 2196
SubcrestalMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.00 L
CI198 H181201 L
Bone LevelMBL0.000.000.97 H
CI163 L224205 L
Tissue LevelMBL0.00 H1.24 H0.00
CI154222439 H
Connection Type
n = 2196
InternalMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.91
CI167221205 L
CustomMBL0.00 H1.24 H0.00
CI154222439 H
Connection Shape
n = 2196
ConicalMBL0.000.000.00
CI202 H225200 L
Internal HexagonMBL0.000.000.97
CI151 L220205 L
Internal OctagonMBL0.000.672.91
CI205168268
One Piece AbutmMBL0.001.240.00
CI154222439 H
Head Microthreads
n = 2196
YesMBL0.000.00 L0.73 L
CI170 H221201
NoMBL0.000.61 H1.15 H
CI158 L222227
Body Shape
n = 2196
TaperedMBL0.000.00 L0.85
CI167226 H206
StraightMBL0.001.33 H1.15
CI172147 L206
Body Threads
n = 1760
ButteressMBL0.002.15 Hn.a.
CI190383 Hn.a
Reverse ButteressMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.79 L
CI171 H239 H213
V ShapeMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.00 L
CI174 H197 L184
SquareMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.91 L
CI150 L201 L211
No ThreadsMBL0.30 H1.54 H2.57 H
CI190164 L232
Apex Shape
n = 2196
ConeMBL0.000.000.00
CI122 L199193
DomeMBL0.000.000.79
CI174 H230 H213
FlatMBL0.000.45 H1.21
CI148103 L201
Apex Hole
n = 1447
RoundMBL0.00 L1.54 H2.57 H
CI190164 L232
No or otherMBL0.30 H0.00 L0.79 L
CI167221 H206
Apex Groove
n = 2196
YesMBL0.00 L0.00 L0.79 L
CI167220105
NoMBL0.00 H1.66 H2.00 H
CI154297258
H value higher than in other implant design options within observation period (p < 0.05); L value lower than in other implant design options within observation period (p < 0.05); n—number of evaluated dental implants; MBL—marginal bone loss is given as median due to non-normal distribution in mm; CI—corticalization index is given as median due to non-normal distribution.
Table 5. The prosthetic works examined in this study.
Table 5. The prosthetic works examined in this study.
ProstheticnFeatureInitial5 Years10 Years
Single Crown734MBL0.00 H0.000.91
CI153 L196 L186 L
Splinted Crowns794MBL0.000.001.20 H
CI198224227 H
Bridge576MBL0.00 L0.00 L0.00 L
CI172 H251 H215
Overdenture160MBL0.000.49 H0.00 L
CI185 H392 H239 H
Platform Switching509MBL0.000.001.06
CI155 L197 L200
H value higher than in other prosthetic solutions (p < 0.05); L value lower than in other prosthetic solutions (p < 0.05); n—number of evaluated dental implants; MBL—marginal bone loss is given as median due to non-normal distribution in mm; CI—corticalization index is given as median due to non-normal distribution.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kozakiewicz, M.; Wach, T. Exploring the Importance of Corticalization Occurring in Alveolar Bone Surrounding a Dental Implant. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237189

AMA Style

Kozakiewicz M, Wach T. Exploring the Importance of Corticalization Occurring in Alveolar Bone Surrounding a Dental Implant. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(23):7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237189

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kozakiewicz, Marcin, and Tomasz Wach. 2022. "Exploring the Importance of Corticalization Occurring in Alveolar Bone Surrounding a Dental Implant" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 23: 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237189

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop