지대주 풀림과 조임시 지대주 세척방법에 따른 임플란트 주변 골소실의 양에 대한 평가

Effect of cleansing methods on the bone resorption due to repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment

  • 양승민 (성균관대학교 의과대학 치과학교실, 삼성서울병원 치주과) ;
  • 신승윤 (성균관대학교 의과대학 치과학교실, 삼성서울병원 치주과) ;
  • 계승범 (성균관대학교 의과대학 치과학교실, 삼성서울병원 치주과)
  • Yang, Seung-Min (Department of Periodontics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Seung-Yun (Department of Periodontics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kye, Seung-Beom (Department of Periodontics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 발행 : 2007.09.30

초록

Background : Repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment caused bone loss around implant fixtures due to the new formation of biologic width of the mucosal-implant barrier. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate whether the repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment cause bone loss clinically and the effect of cleansing methods on a bone loss during the early healing period. Methods : A total 50 implants were installed in 20 patients and repeated dis/re-connection of abutment was performed at the time of surgery and once per week for 12 weeks. 0.9% normal saline solution as group1 and 0.1% chlorhexidine solution as group 2 was used to clean abutments. All patients had radiographs taken at the placement of implant and 4, 8, and 12 weeks postoperatively. The data for bone loss around implant were analyzed. Results: The marginal bone loss at 12 weeks were $1.28{\pm}0.51mm$, $1,32{\pm}0,57mm$ in the mesial and distal sides in group1, $1.94{\pm}0.75mm$, $1.81{\pm}0.84mm$ in group 2, respectively. In view of marginal bone loss, there was not a significant statistical difference between groups. Conclusions : Repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment may not cause marginal bone loss around implant fixture although limited samples and short-term observation period. In spite of more bone loss in group 2, there was no statistical significant difference between groups. In context of those results, the clinical significance of the repeated dis/re-connection of implant abutment and the cleansing method of abutments is debatable when it comes to marginal bone loss during early healing period.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Branemark P, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses, Chicago: Quintessence Publishing, 1985: 11-43
  2. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/ reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997:24:568-572 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00230.x
  3. Berglundh T, Lindhs J, Ericsson I, et al, The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991:2:81-90 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020206.x
  4. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K, Ericsson I, The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. J Clin Periodontal 1994:21:189-193 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1994.tb00302.x
  5. Buser D, Weber HP, Donath K, et al, Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. J Periodontal 1992;63:225-235 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.3.225
  6. Ericsson I, Berglundh T, Marinello C, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J. Long-standing plaque and gingivitis at implants and teeth in the dog, Clin Oral Implants Res 1992:3:99-103 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030301.x
  7. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, et al, Different types of inflammatory reactions III peri -implant soft tissues, J Clin Periodontal 1995: 22: 255-261 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb00143.x
  8. Listgarten MA, Lang NP, Schroeder HE, Schroeder A. Periodontal tissues and their counterparts around endosseous implants [corrected and republished with original paging, article orginally printed in Clin Oral Implants Res 1991 Jan-Mar:2(1):1-19], Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:1-19 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020309.x
  9. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wermstrom J, Lindhe J, The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems, A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:212-219 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070303.x
  10. Abrahamsson I, Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T, et al. The mucosal attachment to titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2002:29:448-455 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2002.290510.x
  11. Abrahamsson I, Cardaropoli G, Peri-implant hard and soft tissue integration to dental implants made of titanium and gold, Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:269-271 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01326.x
  12. Moon IS, Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Linder E, Lindhe J. The barrier between the keratinized mucosa and the dental implant. An experimental study in the dog, J Clin Periodontol 1999;26:658-663 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.1999.261005.x
  13. Weber HP, Cochran DL, The soft tissue response to osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1998:79:79-89 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70198-2
  14. 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 1986:1:11-25
  15. Hyun-Suk Choi, Hyun-Ju Chung, Ok-Su Kim, Young-Jun Kim. The study on the survival rates and crestal bone changes around the implants. J Korean Acad Periodontol 2004: 34:303-315 https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2004.34.2.303
  16. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, van Steenberghe D. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:239-244 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050407.x
  17. Porras R, Anderson GB, Caffesse R, Narendran S, Trejo PM. Clinical response to 2 different therapeutic regimens to treat peri-implant mucositis. J Periodontol 2002: 73: 1118-1125 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.10.1118
  18. Ericsson I, Nilner K, Klinge B, Glantz PO, Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and non submerged titanium implants. An experimental study in the Labrador dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:20-26 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070103.x
  19. Ericsson I, Randow K, Glantz PO, Lindhe J, Nilner K. Clinical and radiographical features of submerged and nonsubmerged titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:185-189 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050310.x
  20. Shakespeare V, Shakespeare PG, Evans BT, Effects of proprietary oral rinses containing chlorhexidine, hexetidine and benzydamine on the proliferation of human buccal epithelial cells in culture, Arch Oral Biol 1988: 33:881-885 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(88)90017-9
  21. De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Collaert B, et al, Fixed mandibular restorations on three early-loaded regular platform Branemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:176-184 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00139.x
  22. Rompen E, Touati B, Van Dooren E. Factors influencing marginal tissue remodeling around implants. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003:15:754-757, 759, 761