The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A systematic review of the survival rate on short implants

짧은 임플란트의 생존율에 관한 고찰

  • Lee, Eun-Jeong (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Won (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Choi, Ji-Young (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Mi (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Oh, Nam-Sik (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University)
  • 이은정 (인하대병원 치의학교실) ;
  • 김원 (인하대병원 치의학교실) ;
  • 최지영 (인하대병원 치의학교실) ;
  • 김승미 (인하대병원 치의학교실) ;
  • 오남식 (인하대병원 치의학교실)
  • Published : 2009.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to obtain the comprehensive survival rates of short implants. Then it was examined that whether treatment using short implants has favorable results. Methods: A MEDLINE search was performed, the data obtained from many articles about length, diameter, site of placement, surface treatment and prosthetic design were analyzed. Results and discussion: The data obtained from many articles were analyzed, and it was found that the survival rate of short implants was 95.87%, short implants has similar outcomes to those reported for standard implants. On the other hand, in the comparison the survival rate of 3 groups divided by the diameter of implants under 4 mm, 4-5 mm, and above 5 mm, a statistically significant difference was detected in under 4mm group. In implant group with 6-7 mm length, a group with 5-6 mm diameter has survival rate of 97.01%, groups with 3.1-4.8 mm diameter has survival rate of 92.96%, which was statistically significantly different. In the result of surface feature, the roughed surface groups of short implant showed a higher survival rate by approximately 6.3% than machined surface group. In the result of prosthetic design, survival rate of short implant was considerably lower for the single implant crown group (94.3%) than splinting group (99.4%).

연구목적: 임플란트의 생존율에 영향을 미치는 요소들에 따른 구체적인 생존율을 살펴보고 짧은 임플란트의 사용도 예후성있는 치료인지에 관해 평가하는 것이다. 연구방법: MEDLINE (PubMed)을 통하여 검색된 논문에서 임플란트의 길이, 직경, 식립 위치, 표면 처리, 상부 구조와 관련된 정보를 추출하여 각 요인별 생존율을 비교 분석하였다. 임플란트의 길이와 직경의 생존율과 구간별 생존율 비교를 위해 카이 제곱 독립성 검정을 이용하였으며 임플란트의 식립 위치나 표면처리, 상부 구조 디자인 간의 생존율 비교를 위해서 Window용 SPSS 프로그램을 이용한 일원배치 분산 분석을 이용하였다. 결과 및 결론: 짧은 임플란트 (8.5 mm 이하)의 생존율은 95.87% 였으며 이는 여러 문헌에 보고된 표준적인 길이 (10-12 mm)를 가진 임플란트의 생존율과 유사하였다. 그 중에서도 길이 6-7 mm 짧은 임플란트의 생존율이 길이 7.5-12 mm 임플란트의 생존율보다 더 낮았다 (P<.05). 한편, 직경 4 mm미만, 4-5 mm, 그리고 5 mm이상의 3집단으로 나누어 생존율 비교시 4 mm 미만 집단에서 낮은 생존율을 보였으며 길이 6-7 mm의 짧은 임플란트의 경우 5-6 mm 직경의 임플란트를 식립했을 때의 생존율은 97.01%, 3.1-4.8 mm 직경일 때의 생존율 92.96%로 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였다. Machined surface와 표면 처리된 짧은 임플란트의 생존율 비교시 표면 처리된 경우가 약 6.3% 정도 높은 생존율을 보였으며 보철 수복시 인접 임플란트와 연결한 경우 (99.4%)가 단일 임플란트 치관으로 수복한 경우 (94.3%)보다 높은 생존율을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses suppoted by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329-36 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070405.x
  2. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE. Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: A long-term case series study. J Periodontol 2005;76:310-9 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.2.310
  3. Strong JT, Misch CE, Birdez MW, Nalluri P. Functional surface area: Thread form parameter optimization for implant body design. Compendium 19, 1998
  4. Schnitman PA, Rubenstein JE, Wh$\"{o}$rle PS, Dasilva JD, Koch GG. Implants for partial edentulism. J Dent Educ 1988;52:725-36
  5. Minsk L, Polson A, Weisgold A, Rose LF, Sanavi F, Baumgarten H, Listgarten MA. Outcome failures of endosseous implants from a clinical training center. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996;17:848-56
  6. Lekholm U, Gr$\"{o}$ndahl K, Jemt T. Outcome of oral implant treatment in partially edentulous jaws followed 20 years in clinical function. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:178-86 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00019.x
  7. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. An evaluation of torque (moment) on implant/prosthesis with staggered buccal and lingual offset. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:252-65
  8. Lum LB, Osier JF. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: an analysis using statics. Part one:Horizontal loading. J Oral Implantol 1992;18:343-53
  9. Lum LB. A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 1991;17:126-31
  10. Sertg$\"{o}$z A, G$\"{u}$vener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:165-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90301-7
  11. Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Etienne D, Zabalegui I, Mattout P, Chiche F, Michel JF. A prospective multicenter evaluation of 1,583 3i implants: 1- to 5-year data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:820-8
  12. Goen$\'{e}$ R, Bianchesi C, H$\"{u}$erzeler M, Del Lupo R, Testori T, Davarpanah M, Jalbout Z. Performance of short implants in partial restorations: 3-year follow-up of Osseotite implants. Implant Dent 2005;14:274-80 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000173335.90854.d8
  13. Feldman S, Boitel N, Weng D, Kohles SS, Stach RM. Five-year survival distributions of short-length (10 mm or less) machined-surfaced and Osseotite implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:16-23 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00023.x

Cited by

  1. Retrospective clinical study on sinus bone graft and tapered-body implant placement vol.39, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2013.39.2.77