An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study

To evaluate implant loss (IL) and marginal bone loss (MBL); follow-up period of up to 10 years after prosthetic loading. Retrospective multi-centre cross-sectional cohort study. Double analysis: (1) all the implants (n = 456) were analysed; (2) to allow for possible cluster error, one implant per patient (n = 143) was selected randomly. Statistical analysis: Spearman’s correlation coefficient; Kruskal–Wallis (post-hoc U-Mann–Whitney); Chi-square (post-hoc Haberman). (1) Analysing all the implants (456): IL was observed in patients with past periodontitis (6 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.05), short implants (12 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001) and when using regenerative surgery (11.3 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001); greater MBL was observed among smokers (0.39 ± 0.52 vs. 0.2 ± 0.29, p < 0.01), maxillary implants (0.28 ± 0.37 vs. 0.1 ± 0.17, p < 0.0001), anterior region implants (0.32 ± 0.36 vs. 0.21 ± 0.33, p < 0.001), external connection implants (0.2 ± 0.29 vs. 0.63 ± 0.59, p < 0.0001), and 2–3 years after loading (p < 0.0001). (2) analysing the cluster (143): IL was observed in smokers (18.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05), splinted fixed crowns (12.9%, p < 0.01), short implants (22.2 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.01) and when using regenerative surgery (19.2 vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01); greater MBL was observed in maxillary implants (0.25 ± 0.35 vs. 0.11 ± 0.18, p < 0.05), in the anterior region (p < 0.05), in the first 3 years (p < 0.01), in external connection implants (0.72 ± 0.71 vs. 0.19 ± 0.26, p < 0.01) and in short implants (0.38 ± 0.31 vs. 0.2 ± 0.32, p < 0.05). There is greater risk in smokers, patients with past periodontal disease, external connection implants, the use of short implants and when regenerative techniques are used. To prevent MBL and IL, implantologists should be very meticulous in indicating implants in patients affected by these host factors.