Comparison Of Crestal Bone Loss Around Implants With Different Crown Materials

Authors

  • P. Anil Kumar
  • Ravinder Reddy B
  • Koineni Rajender
  • Muduganti Jawali Reddy
  • K. Soumya
  • T. Sudhakar Reddy

Keywords:

Dental implants, Dental implants, Crestal bone loss, Crestal bone loss, Crown materials, Crown materials, Zirconia, Zirconia, Porcelain-fused-to-metal, Porcelain-fused-to-metal, Resin-modified ceramics, Resin-modified ceramics, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone level, Prosthetic rehabilitation, Prosthetic rehabilitation

Abstract

Background: Crestal bone stability is a key indicator of long-term implant success. Different crown materials may influence biomechanical load transfer and thereby affect peri-implant bone remodeling. This study compared crestal bone loss (CBL) around implants restored with porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), monolithic zirconia, and resin-modified ceramic crowns.

Materials and Methods: A prospective clinical study was conducted on 60 bone-level implants placed in 54 patients. Following standardized healing and prosthetic protocols, implants were randomly assigned to one of three crown material groups (n = 20 each). Crestal bone levels were measured radiographically at crown placement (baseline), 6 months, and 12 months using a standardized paralleling technique and digital analysis. Clinical parameters, including plaque index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing, were recorded.

Results: All implants survived over the 12-month follow-up. Mean 12-month CBL was 0.68 ± 0.18 mm (PFM), 0.59 ± 0.15 mm (zirconia), and 0.64 ± 0.17 mm (resin-modified ceramic), with no statistically significant differences among groups (p > 0.05). Soft-tissue parameters remained stable and comparable across groups.

Conclusion: Within the study limits, crown material did not significantly influence early crestal bone remodeling. All three restorative materials demonstrated minimal and clinically acceptable bone loss after 1 year of loading

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.

Karthik K, Sivakumar AA, Thangaswamy V. Evaluation of dental implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S117-9. doi:10.4103/0975-7406.113310.

Uppala S, Parihar AS, Dhillon M, Sharma N. Crestal bone loss around dental implants after implantation of tricalcium phosphate and platelet-rich plasma: A comparative study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(1):229-34. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_707_19.

Sargolzaie N, Zarch HH, Arab H, Koohestani T, Ramandi MF. Marginal bone loss around crestal or subcrestal dental implants: A prospective clinical study. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;48(3):159-66. doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.3.159.

Aldebes A, Al-Judy A, Al-Jabrah O, Habib E, Al-Omari M. The effect of restoration material on marginal bone resorption in zirconia implants: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(4):864-73. doi:10.1002/cre2.607.

Shen XT, Li JY, Luo X, Feng Y, Gai LT, He FM. Peri-implant marginal bone changes with implant-supported metal-ceramic or monolithic zirconia single crowns: A retrospective clinical study of 1 to 5 years. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(3):368-74. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.021.

Agustín-Panadero R, Soriano-Valero S, Faus-Llácer V, Fons-Font A, Solá-Ruiz MF. Implant-supported metal-ceramic and resin-modified ceramic crowns: A 5-year prospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):120-7. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.002.

Sabău DT, Juncar RI, Moca AE, Bota T, Moca RT, Juncar M. Impact of prosthetic material and restoration type on peri-implant bone resorption: A retrospective analysis in a Romanian sample. J Clin Med. 2024;13(6):1794. doi:10.3390/jcm13061794.

Abdul Rahim M, Khan K, Chrcanovic BR. Influence of crown-implant ratio and implant inclination on marginal bone loss around dental implants supporting single crowns in the posterior region: A retrospective clinical study. J Clin Med. 2023;12(9):3219. doi:10.3390/jcm12093219.

Chu M, Kim J, Lee J. Factors influencing marginal bone loss in dental implants: A prosthetic perspective. J Korean Acad Osseointegr. 2025;29(1):1-10. (Online ahead of print).

Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Periodontol. 2018;89(S1):S267-90. doi:10.1002/JPER.16-0350.

Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Lüthy H, Gauckler LJ, Schärer P, et al. Prospective clinical study of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: 3-year follow-up. Quintessence Int. 2006;37(9):685-93.

Budhwar P, Syed AK. Bone regeneration and implantology. In Stem Cells and Dentistry; 2024.

Kanneppady SS, Kanneppady SK, Mathew T, Almazrou YM, Syed AK, Hota S, Tiwari R. Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Identifying Periapical Lesions: A Comparative Study with Conventional Radiography. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S476-S478. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1433_24.

Dharmendra Kumar MG, Gurmehak Kaur Sandhu, Mamta Garg, Rahul Tiwari, Heena Dixit, Afroz Kalmee Syed. Efficacy of Collagen Pouch versus Standard Repair in Sinus Membrane Healing: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Clin Pract. 2021;7(2):110-116.

Kanneppady SS, Kanneppady SK, Jamatia K, Tiwari K, Ausare SS, Dash A, Syed AK. Assessment of Jaw Bone Density Using Cone-Beam CT in Patients with Osteoporosis: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2025 May;17(Suppl 1):S430-S432. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1434_24. Epub 2025 Feb 25. PMID: 40511131; PMCID: PMC12156532...

Downloads

Published

2025-06-25

How to Cite

1.
Kumar PA, Reddy B R, Rajender K, Jawali Reddy M, Soumya K, Reddy TS. Comparison Of Crestal Bone Loss Around Implants With Different Crown Materials. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025 Jun. 25 [cited 2026 Mar. 8];14(26S):1314-9. Available from: https://jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/9609

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 26S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.