Long-term radiographic marginal bone changes and implant survival in tooth agenesis versus non-agenesis sites: a retrospective cohort study of 710 implants
This retrospective cohort study of 710 implants demonstrates that dental implants placed in tooth agenesis sites exhibit long-term marginal bone stability and survival rates comparable to those in non-agenesis sites, suggesting that local anatomical conditions and reconstructive complexity influence prognosis more significantly than the presence of agenesis itself.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, dentists have faced a unique challenge when a patient is born without certain permanent teeth. This condition, known as tooth agenesis, is more than just a missing tooth; it is a signal that the jawbone in that specific area never fully developed its normal shape or size. Because the bone that supports teeth grows in response to the tooth itself, a missing tooth often leaves behind a ridge of bone that is narrower, shorter, or oddly shaped. When a patient needs a dental implant to replace the missing tooth, surgeons must work with this altered landscape. The central question for many years has been whether these developmental differences make the implant less likely to succeed over time. Specifically, researchers wondered if the bone around an implant placed in a congenitally missing site would deteriorate faster than bone around an implant placed in a normally formed jaw, potentially leading to failure.
To answer this, a team of researchers at the University Clinic of Dentistry in Vienna looked back at the records of hundreds of patients treated over a ten-year period. They examined 710 dental implants placed between 2000 and 2010, dividing them into two groups. One group consisted of 284 implants placed in sites where teeth were congenitally missing. The other group, serving as a comparison, included 426 implants placed in areas where the jawbone had developed normally. The team did not just check if the implants were still there; they measured the bone level right next to the implant at the time of placement and then again at various points over the following years, ranging from a few months to more than eight years later. They used X-rays to measure how much bone had been lost from the top of the implant down to the surrounding tissue, a process called marginal bone loss, which is a key indicator of long-term health.
The results offered a clear and reassuring picture. The researchers found that the implants placed in the sites with missing teeth performed just as well as those in the normally developed bone. Over the long term, the amount of bone lost around the implants was statistically the same in both groups. Whether the bone was measured after one year, three years, or eight years, the implants in the agenesis sites did not show any sign of weakening or losing more bone than their counterparts in normal bone. Furthermore, the survival rate was nearly identical. About 96 percent of the implants in the missing-tooth group remained in place at the end of the study, compared to roughly 94 percent in the control group. This difference was so small that it was not considered statistically significant, meaning the missing tooth itself did not make the implant more likely to fail.
However, the study did uncover a factor that did matter significantly: the complexity of the surgery required to build up the bone. While the missing teeth themselves were not a risk, the need for extensive bone reconstruction was. The researchers found that implants requiring a combination of two different types of bone grafting procedures had a lower survival rate than those needing only one type of graft or no graft at all. This suggests that the difficulty of the specific anatomical defect, rather than the fact that the tooth was missing from birth, is what influences the outcome. In fact, the group with missing teeth actually required bone grafting less often than the control group, likely because their treatment plans were often tailored to use narrow implants or orthodontic space management to avoid major surgery.
The study also looked at how well the implants met strict definitions of success, which vary slightly depending on how much bone loss is considered acceptable. When using the most lenient definitions, the success rates were identical between the two groups. When using the strictest definition, the control group showed slightly higher success, but this was a minor difference that did not change the overall conclusion. The authors emphasize that while the bone around an implant naturally remodels and settles slightly over time, this process happens at the same pace regardless of whether the site was born with a missing tooth.
Ultimately, the findings suggest that the congenital absence of a tooth is not an independent biological risk factor for implant failure. Instead, the long-term health of the implant depends on the local conditions of the jaw, the skill of the surgical planning, and the complexity of any necessary reconstruction. For patients born without certain teeth, this means that with careful, individualized treatment planning that accounts for the specific shape of their jaw, dental implants can provide a stable, long-lasting solution that performs just as well as it does for anyone else. The key is not the history of the missing tooth, but the quality of the bone and the precision of the placement in the present day.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.