The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

INFLUENCE OF IMPLANT DIAMETER ON THE OSSEOINTEGRATION OF IMPLANTS : AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN RABBITS

임플란트 직경이 골유착에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

  • Lee Jun-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Shin Sang-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Kwon Sang-Ho (Neobiotech Biomaterials Research Center)
  • 이준호 (고대대학교 의과대학 치과학교실 보철과) ;
  • 신상완 (고대대학교 의과대학 치과학교실 보철과) ;
  • 권상호 (네오바이오텍 생체재료연구소)
  • Published : 2003.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem : The survival rate of wide diameter implants was lower than of 3.75-mm implants in some clinical researches. Purpose : The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of implant diameter on the osseointegration of implants in the rabbit femoral condyle and tibial metaphyses by means of removal torque measurements and histomorphometric analysis. Material and Method : Ten adult New Zealand White rabbits were used in this study Two 3.75-mm diameter implants were inserted through one cortical layer in the tibial metaphyses and one 3.75-mm diameter implant was inserted in the femoral condyle. 5.0-mm diameter implants were inserted in the other leg in the same manner. A total of 60 implants (3.75-mm diameter implants:30 : 5.0-mm diameter implants:30) were installed. After a healing time of 4 and 12 weeks, the peak removal torque values required to shear off the implants were recorded. From the removal torque values (Ncm) obtained, the mean shear stress ($N/mm^2$) was calculated. And the percentage of direct bone-to-implant contact and the percentage of bone area inside the thread were measured by Kappa Image Base-metreo. The Student's t-test was undertaken for statistical analysis (p<0.05). Results : The removal torque value of 5.0-mm diameter implants was higher than of 3.75-mm diameter implants (p<0.05). The difference of shear stress value between 3.75-mm and 5.0-mm diameter implants was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The percentage direct bone-to-implant contact had no statistical difference between two groups (p>0.05). The percentage of bone area inside the thread had no statistical difference between two groups (p>0.05). Conclusion It is concluded that the quality f osseointegration is not influenced by increasing implant diameter.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI. Breine U, Lindstrom J, Adell R, Hansson BO, Ohlsson A. Intra-os-seous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81-100 https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699
  2. Adell R, Lekhilm U, RockIer B, Br${\aa}$nemark P-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  3. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Br${\aa}$nemark P-I, Jemt T. A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the totally edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 1990;5:347-359
  4. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Erbom LI, Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988:59:287-296
  5. Kopp CD. Branemark osseointegration prognosis and treatment rationale. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:701-731
  6. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Br${\aa}$nemark fixtures in type iv bone. A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 1991;62:24
  7. Saadoun AP, LeGall ML. Clinical results and guidelines on Steri-Oss endosseous implants. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1992;12:487-499
  8. Tolman DE. Reconstructive procedures with endosseous implants in grafted bone: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:275-394
  9. Friberg B. Bone quality evaluation during implant placement. Academic dissertation for the degree of master of dental science. University of G thenburg, G thenburg. Sweden, 1994
  10. Ivanoff C-J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U. Influence of mono and bicortical anchorage on the integration of titanium implants. A study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25:229-235 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(96)80036-1
  11. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I. Jorneus L, The Wide Fixture: A Solution for Special Bone Situations and a Rescue for the Compromised Implant. Part 1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:400-408
  12. Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C., Rangert B, Lerholm U. Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants: An experimental study in rabbits. Int. J. Oral Maillofac. Surg. 1997;26:141-148
  13. Jarvis WC. Biomechanical advantages of wide diameter implants. Compend Cintin Educ Dent 1997;18(7):687-692
  14. Ivanoff CJ, Grodahl K, Sennerby L, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U. Influence of Variations in Implant Diameters: A 3-to 5-year Retrospective Clinical Report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:173-180
  15. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ. Early Experience with Wide-Platform Mk ii Implants Part I : Implants Survival. Part ii : Evaluation of Risk Factors Involving Implant Survival. lnt Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:208-216
  16. Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implant in the rabbit. A one year follow up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:69-75
  17. Carlsson L, R stlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torque for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21-24
  18. Tjellstrom A, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T. Removal torque of osseointegrated craniofacial implants: A clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:287-289
  19. Hirofumi Kidc, Eloy E, Schulz, Ajay Kumar, Jaime Lozada, Subrata Saha. Implant diameter and bone density: Effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance. Journal of Oral Implantogy 1997;23:163-169
  20. Albrektsson A, Jacobsson M. Bone-metal interface in osseointegration. J Proth Dent 1987;57:597-607 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90344-1
  21. Sennerby L, Thomson P. Ericson L. A morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:62-71
  22. Johansson C, Chong Hyun Han, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. A Quantitative Comparison of Machined Commercially Pure Titanium and Titanium Aluminum-Vanadium Implants in Rabbit Bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1998;13:315-321
  23. Aparicio C, Orozco P. Use of 5-mm-diameter implants: Periotest values related to a clinical and radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Impl Res 1998;9:398-406 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.090605.x
  24. Tawil G, Mawla M, Gottlow J. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the 5-mm Diameter Regular-Platform Branemark fixture: 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Res 2002;4:16-26 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00147.x
  25. Kim YB, Han CH. Clinical study of wide implant system. The Jounal of Korean Acamemy of Oral&Maxillo implantology 2001;5:15-28
  26. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4641 consecutively placed Br${\aa$nemark dental implants. A study from stage I surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:142-146
  27. Jaffin RA, Berman CL. The excessive loss of Br${\aa}$nemark fixures in type iv bone. A 5-year analysis. J Periodontal 1991;62:24
  28. Eriksson, RA. Heat-induced bone tissue injury. An in vivo investigation of heat tolerance of bone tissue and temperature rise in the drilling of cortical bone. Thesis, University of G thenburg, Sweden. 1984
  29. Eriksson, RA., Albrektsson T. The effect of heat on bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984;42:705-711 https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90417-8
  30. English C, Bahat O. Langer B, Sheets CG. What are the clinical limitation of wide diameter (4mm or greater) root-form endosseus implants? Int J Oral&Maxillofac implants 2000;15(2):293-296
  31. Renouard F, Riachi F. Apport des implants de 5-mm de diameter en implantoligie oral. Implantoligie 1994;24:2069-2076