Radiographic evaluation of the distance between the restoration margin and the alveolar bone crest in dental implant patients: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES

The recently introduced Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) identifies a restoration margin-alveolar bone crest (RM-AC) distance of less than 1.5 mm as a key risk factor for peri‑implant disease among eight major risk factors. This study evaluated the impact of the RM-AC distance on marginal bone loss (MBL) through radiographic analysis.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 77 partially edentulous patients (39 females and 38 males, aged 22 to 76 years) with 202 platform-switched conical connection implants, cement-retained, implant-supported fixed restorations, and bone-level implants placed between 2016 and 2021. Dental implants were followed for least 6 to 36 months at follow up functional loading. Study participants were categorized into Group A (RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 mm, n = 69) and Group B (RM-AC distance > 1.5 mm, n = 133). Twelve patients in Group B and five patients in Group A had no history of periodontal disease. The MBL was measured radiographically from the most coronal point of the implant shoulder to the alveolar bone, and the RM-AC distance was measured from the restoration margin to the alveolar crest. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

The incidence of MBL in Group A was statistically significant and 3.42 times higher than that in Group B. The rate of MBL in periodontitis Stage 4 was found to be 26.31 times higher than that in periodontitis Stage 2. The incidence of MBL was 6.097 and 5.02 times higher with increasing implant diameter and length, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study conclusively demonstrates that RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 significantly increases the risk of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study highlights the critical role of maintaining an RM-AC distance greater than 1.5 mm in the prevention of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease. Since implant diameter and length have a significant impact on the risk of MBL, it emphasizes that implant demographics should also be carefully evaluated.