All Issue

2025 Vol.29, Issue 1

Review Article

Factors Influencing Marginal Bone Loss in Dental Treatment Planning and Prosthetic Phases: A Literature Review
Minwoo Chu1
,
Chanyoung Yoon1
,
Donghun Lee1
,
Hyojung Kim1
,
Yusung Choi2
,
Jonghyuk Lee2*
1Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, Dankook University College of Dentistry, Cheonan, Korea
2Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Dankook University College of Dentistry, Cheonan, Korea
*Corresponding Author
31 March 2025. pp. 1-10
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Introduction: This review aims to explore the prosthetic factors that affect marginal bone loss (MBL) in dental implants and to provide evidence-based insights to improve clinical outcomes and ensure long-term implant success.

Materials and Methods: A total of 236 articles were initially retrieved through database searches using keywords such as “implant design,” “platform switching,” “emergence profile,” and “marginal bone loss,” and 38 were selected based on relevance, methodological rigor, and level of evidence, with preference given to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and recent studies. The selected studies were narratively summarized based on the following topics.

Results: Internal connection implants showed significantly lower MBL than external connection types. The emergence profile, particularly the emergence angle, was identified as a critical factor for peri-implant bone stability, with over-contoured designs being associated with increased MBL. Residual cement at subgingival margins posed a significant risk of peri-implant inflammation and bone loss. Fixture length and diameter had limited direct effects, but deeper implant placement was associated with greater initial MBL while reducing thread exposure over time. The crown-to-implant ratio and cantilever design were associated with biomechanical stress and bone loss.

Conclusion: Splinting improved load distribution and implant survival rates, but also increased hygienic challenges and the risk of peri-implantitis.

Keywords
Alveolar bone loss
Dental implants
Dental prosthesis design
Implant-abutment interface
Prosthesis retention
References
1

Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:352-9.

10.1067/mpr.2003.9112690347
2

Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza E dos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:377-88.

10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.02325467739
3

Safii SH, Palmer RM, Wilson RF. Risk of implant failure and marginal bone loss in subjects with a history of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:165-74.

10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00162.x19438942
4

Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman PO, Sennerby L. Initial and long‐term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:41-50.

10.1111/prd.1217628000272
5

Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE. Peri‐implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45:237-45.

10.1111/jcpe.12953
6

Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, O Valle F, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2mm. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:e28-e34.

10.1111/clr.12324
7

Windael S, Collaert B, De Buyser S, De Bruyn H, Vervaeke S. Early peri‐implant bone loss as a predictor for peri‐implantitis: A 10‐year prospective cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23:298-308.

10.1111/cid.1300034076941
8

Lombardi T, Berton F, Salgarello S, Barbalonga E, Rapani A, Piovesana F. Factors influencing early marginal bone loss around dental implants positioned subcrestally: a multicenter prospective clinical study. J Clin Med 2019;8:1168.

10.3390/jcm808116831382675PMC6723035
9

On SW, Yi SM, Park IY, Byun SH, Yang BE. Fracture and Fatigue of Dental Implants Fixtures and Abutments with a Novel Internal Connection Design: An In Vitro Pilot Study Comparing Three Different Dental Implant Systems. J Funct Biomater 2022;13:239.

10.3390/jfb1304023936412880PMC9680401
10

Janda M, Mattheos N. Prosthetic design and choice of components for maintenance of optimal peri-implant health: a comprehensive review. Br Dent J 2024;236:765-71.

10.1038/s41415-024-7357-038789753
11

Kim DH, Kim HJ, Kim ST, Koo KT, Kim TI, Seol YJ, et al. Comparison of marginal bone loss between internal- and external-connection dental implants in posterior areas without periodontal or peri-implant disease. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2018;48:103-13.

10.5051/jpis.2018.48.2.10329770239PMC5944221
12

Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7:47-61.

24892113
13

Medeiros RA, Pellizzer EP, Vechiato Filho AJ, Dos Santos DM, Freitas da Silva EV, Goiato MC. Evaluation of marginal bone loss of dental implants with internal or external connections and its association with other variables: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:501-6.

10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.02727422232
14

Taheri M, Akbari S, Shamshiri AR, Shayesteh YS. Marginal bone loss around bone-level and tissue-level implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Anat 2020;231:151525.

10.1016/j.aanat.2020.15152532380195
15

Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.

16515092
16

Vaghela J, Moufti MA, Seoudi N, Kheder W. Marginal bone loss around platform-switched and platform-matched implants following immediate dental implant placement - Systematic Review. Dentistry Review 2024;4:100085.

10.1016/j.dentre.2024.100085
17

Tomar S, Saxena D, Kaur N. Marginal bone loss around implants with platform switching and platform matched connection: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2023;S0022-3913:00622-4.

10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.00937863757
18

Yi YS, Koo KT, Schwarz F, Amara HB, Heo SJ. Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol 2020;47:392-403.

10.1111/jcpe.1325131912511
19

Rungtanakiat P, Thitaphanich N, Chengprapakorn W, Janda M, Arksornnukit M, Mattheos N. Association of prosthetic angles of the Implant Supracrestal Complex with peri-implant tissue mucositis. Clin Exp Dent Res 2023;9:425-36.

10.1002/cre2.75037199078PMC10280616
20

Volp Junior LC, Matarazzo F, Dias DR, de Oliveira RP, Sábio S, Araújo MG. The effect of the interproximal contour of single external hexagon implant restorations on the prevalence of peri-implantitis: A retrospective study. J Prosthodont 2024;33:655-62.

10.1111/jopr.1383538487989
21

Atieh MA, Shah M, Ameen M, Tawse-Smith A, Alsabeeha NHM. Influence of implant restorative emergence angle and contour on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2023;25:840-52.

10.1111/cid.1321437183357
22

Kou Y, Li Q, Tang ZH. Prosthetic emergence angle in different implant sites and their correlation with marginal bone loss: A retrospective study. J Dent Sci 2023;18:534-40.

10.1016/j.jds.2022.09.00837021256PMC10068373
23

Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CHF, SchneiderSailer D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:163-201.

10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x23062142
24

Kim HJ, Karasan DG, Park KJ, Kown HB, Han JS, Lee JH. Abutment margin levels and residual cement occurrence in cement-retained implant restorations: An observational study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023;34:33-41.

10.1111/clr.1401536278423
25

Quaranta A, Lim ZW, Tang J, Perrotti V, Leichter J. The Impact of Residual Subgingival Cement on Biological Complications Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent 2017;26:465-74.

10.1097/ID.000000000000059328437366
26

Canullo L, Iannello G, Penarocha M, Garcia B. Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months follow-up a prospective randomized match-paired controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1142-6.

10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02297.x22111758
27

Monje A, Suarez F, Moreno PG, Nogales AG, Fu JH, Wang HL. A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants(<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1119-24.

10.1111/clr.1223623937287
28

Hämmerle CH, Brägger U, Bürgin W, Lang NP. The effect of subcrestal placement of the polished surface of ITI® implants on marginal soft and hard tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:111-9.

10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070204.x9002829
29

Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:1-11.

10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001001.x11168188
30

Vervaeke S, Matthys C, Nassar R, Christiaens V, Cosyn J, Bruyn DH. Adapting the vertical position of implants with a conical connection in relation to soft tissue thickness prevents early implant surface exposure: A 2-year prospective intra-subject comparison. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45:605-12.

10.1111/jcpe.1287129359339
31

Pellizzer EP, Luna Gomes JM, Araújo Lemos CA, Minatel L, Oliveira Limírio JPJ, Moraes SLD. The influence of crown-to-implant ratio in single crowns on clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126:497-502.

10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.01032948311
32

Padhye NM, Lakha T, Naenni N, Kheur M. Effect of crown-to-implant ratio on the marginal bone level changes and implant survival - A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020;10:705-13.

10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.10.00233072508PMC7548298
33

Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: A finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015;9:311-8.

10.4103/1305-7456.16323526430356PMC4569979
34

Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Lemos CAA, Cruz RS, Oliveira HFF, Gomes JML, et al. Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:41-51.

10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.00429961632
35

Yi Y, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Koo KT. Splinting or nonsplinting adjacent implants? A retrospective study up to 15 years: Part I-biologic and mechanical complication analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:435-42a.

10.11607/jomi.1005337279228
36

Khorshid HE, Issa NO, Ekram AM. Effect of implant diameter and cantilever length on the marginal bone height changes and stability of implants supporting screw retained prostheses: A randomized double blinded control trial. J Adv Prosthodont 2023;15:101-13.

10.4047/jap.2023.15.3.10137441715PMC10333100
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
  • Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of implantology and applied sciences
  • Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
  • Volume : 29
  • No :1
  • Pages :1-10
  • Received Date : 2024-12-24
  • Revised Date : 2025-02-02
  • Accepted Date : 2025-02-03
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.2025001
Journal Informaiton Journal of implantology and applied sciences Journal of implantology and applied sciences
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • 임플란트학회 전용 배너
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crossref funder-registry
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close