Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지

STUDY ON RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF MARGINAL BONE LOSS AROUND OSSEOINTEGRATED IMPLANT AFTER FUNCTIONAL LOADING

기능적 부하 후 임플란트 주변의 골 흡수에 대한 방사선학적 연구

  • Choi, Su-Jin (Dept. of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Sanbon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Chee, Young-Deok (Dept. of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Sanbon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Koh, Se-Wook (Dept. of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Sanbon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University)
  • 최수진 (원광대학교 산본치과병원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 지영덕 (원광대학교 산본치과병원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 고세욱 (원광대학교 산본치과병원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Published : 2009.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss to the bone crest functionally loaded for up to eighteen months and also with regard to other variables of interest. Material and Methods: 135 endosseous implants(GS II, Osstem, South Korea) were placed in 35 patients. The design of GS II implant is straight with the microthread. Radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after loading. Marginal bone level measurement was made from the reference point to the lowest observed point of contact of the marginal bone with the fixture. The reference point of the fixture was the border between the blasted surface and machined surface of the fixture. Results: Implants were on function for a mean 12.7 months(range, 3?18 months). For the 56 maxillary and 79 mandibular implants, mean marginal bone loss was 0.68 mm and 0.70 mm. Implants placed maxillary posterior area displayed more crestal bone loss than the other position. The difference between mesial and distal bone levels was statistically significant (p<0.05) with respective means of 0.51 mm and 0.62 mm. Also, The difference between bone graft group and no-bone graft group was statistically significant(p<0.05) with respective means of 0.38 mm and 0.66 mm. But no statistically significant influence of sex, type of surgery(one or two stage surgery), the implant length was observed(p>0.05). Conclusion: This study indicates the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25
  2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B et al. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures. A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;15:39-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(86)80010-2
  3. Jemt T, Lekhom U, Groundahl K. A 3-Year follow-up study of early single implant restoration ad modum Branemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:341-49
  4. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1 year radiographic evaluation of margingla bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-18
  5. Misch CE, Bidez MW. A scientific rationale for dental implant design. In:Misch CE(ed). Contemporary Implant Dentistry, ed2 St Louis: Mosby, 1999;329-43
  6. Quirynen M, Naert I, Steenberghe D, Dekeyser C, Callens A. Periodontal aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting a partial bridges. An up to 6-years retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1992;19:118-26 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1992.tb00450.x
  7. Michael R, Norton. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design, The influence of surface macro-and microstructure. Clin Oral Impl Res 1998;9:91-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090204.x
  8. Engquist B, Astrand P, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Grondahl K. Marginal bone reaction to oral implants: a prospective comparative study of Astra Tech and Br${\aa}$nemark System implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:30-7 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130103.x
  9. Shin DH, Cho KS, Park KH, Moon IK. An 1 year prospective comparative study evaluating the effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level. Journal of Korean academy of periodontology 2003;33:349-58 https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2003.33.3.349
  10. Gotfredsen K, Holm B, Sewerin I et al. Marginal tissue response adjacent to Astra Dental Implants supporting overdentures in the mandible. A 2-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:83-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040204.x
  11. Hollender L, Rockler B. Radiographic evaluation of osseointegrated implants in the jaws. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 1980;9:91-5 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.1980.0019
  12. Cox JF, Pharoah M. An alternative holder for radiographic evaluation of tissue integrated prosthese. J of Prosthetic Dentistry 1985;56:338-41 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90016-8
  13. Molander B, Ahlqwist M, Grondahl HG, Hollender L. Agreement between panoramic and intraoral radiography in the assessment of marginal bone height. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 1991;20:155-60 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20.3.1808000
  14. Oh TJ, Yoon JK, Misch CE, Wang HL. The caused of early implant bone loss:myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322
  15. Jeong SM, Choi BH, Jingxu Li, Ahn GM, Lee SH, Feng Xuan. Bone healing around implants following flap and mini-flap surgeries: A radiographic evaluation between stage I and stage II surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endol 2008;105:293-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.07.004
  16. Eriksson RA, Albreksson T. The effect of heat on bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac surg 1984;42:701-11
  17. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, et al. Crestal bone changed around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluaion of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:1117-30 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1117
  18. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255-61 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb00143.x
  19. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericwwon I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. 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
  20. Siegele D. Numerical investigations of influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1989;4:333
  21. Guo EX. Mechanical properties of cortical bone and cancellous bone tissue. In: Cowin, S.C., ed. Bone Mechanics Handbook, ed 2. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press 2001;1-23
  22. Guo EX. Mechanical properties of cortical bone and cancellous bone tissue. In: Cowin, S.C., ed. Bone Mechanics Handbook, ed 2. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press 2001;1-23
  23. North MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090204.x
  24. Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:173-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080303.x
  25. Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:465-70 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01302.x
  26. Abrahammson I, Berglundh T. Tissue Characteristics at Microthreaded Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;8:107-13 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00016.x
  27. Wyatt CCL, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant- supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:204-11
  28. Pennarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchl′s JM et al. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:861-7
  29. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68
  30. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01132.x
  31. Hertel R, Kalk W. Influence of the dimensions of implant superstructure on peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:18
  32. Jovanovic SA, Spiekermann H, Richter EJ. Bone regeneration around titanium dental implants in dehisced defect sites. A clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:233-45
  33. Zitzmann NU, Sxharer P, Marinello CP. Long-term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implnats 2001;16:355-66
  34. Jensen OT, Greer, Johnson, Kassenbaum. Vertical guided bone graft augmentation in an new canine mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:335-44
  35. Christoph HF, Hammerle, Ronald E, Jung and Andreas Feloutzis. A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes(guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontology 2002;29 (Suppl. 3):226-31 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.29.s3.14.x
  36. Hardt CRE, Grodahl K, Lekholm U, Wennstrom JL. Outcome of implant therapy in relation to experienced loss of periodontal bone support. A retrospective 5-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:488-94 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130507.x