DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant

  • Cho, Young-Bum (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Chosun University) ;
  • Moon, Seung-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Chosun University) ;
  • Chung, Chae-Heon (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Chosun University)
  • 투고 : 2011.04.28
  • 심사 : 2011.05.04
  • 발행 : 2011.06.30

초록

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of resorption and thickness of labial bone in anterior maxillary implant using cone beam computed tomography with Hitachi CB Mercuray (Hitachi, Medico, Tokyo, Japan). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-one patients with 26 implants were followed-up and checked with CBCT. 21 OSSEOTITE $NT^{(R)}$. (3i/implant Innovations, Florida, USA) and 5 $OSSEOTITE^{(R)}$. implants (3i/implant Innovations, Florida, USA) were placed at anterior region and they were positioned vertically at the same level of bony scallop of adjacent teeth. Whenever there was no lesion or labial bone was intact, immediate placement was tried as possible as it could be. Generated bone regeneration was done in the patients with the deficiency of hard tissue using $Bio-Oss^{(R)}$. (Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and $Bio-Gide^{(R)}$. (Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Second surgery was done in 6 months after implant placement and provisionalization was done for 3 months. Definite abutment was made of titanium abutment with porcelain, gold and zirconia, and was attached after provisionalization. Two-dimensional slices were created to produce sagittal, coronal, axial and 3D by using OnDemand3D (Cybermed, Seoul, Korea). RESULTS. The mean value of bone resorption (distance from top of implant to labial bone) was $1.32 \;{\pm}\; 0.86\; mm$ and the mean thickness of labial bone was $1.91 \;{\pm}\; 0.45 \;mm$. CONCLUSION. It is suggested that the thickness more than 1.91 mm could reduce the amount and incidence of resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Garber DA. The esthetic dental implant: letting restoration be the guide. J Oral Implantol 1996;22:45-50.
  2. Tarnow DP, Eskow RN, Zamzok J. Aesthetics and implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000 1996;11:85-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1996.tb00186.x
  3. Becker W, Becker BE. Guided tissue regeneration for implants placed into extraction sockets and for implant dehiscences: surgical techniques and case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:376-91.
  4. Bahat O, Fontanesi RV, Preston J. Reconstruction of the hard and soft tissues for optimal placement of osseointegrated implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;13:255-75.
  5. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Site development for anterior single implant esthetics: the dentulous site. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:221-6, 228, 230-1.
  6. Wohrle PS. Nobel Perfect esthetic scalloped implant: rationale for a new design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:64-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00017.x
  7. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.
  8. Schrotenboer J, Tsao YP, Kinariwala V, Wang HL. Effect of microthreads and platform switching on crestal bone stress levels: a finite element analysis. J Periodontol 2008;79:2166-72. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080178
  9. Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow- up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported 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
  10. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8.
  11. Small PN, Tarnow DP. Gingival recession around implants: a 1-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:527-32.
  12. Bengazi F, Wennstrom JL, Lekholm U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2-year longitudinal prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:303-10. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070401.x
  13. Cecchinato D, Bengazi F, Blasi G, Botticelli D, Cardarelli I, Gualini F. Bone level alterations at implants placed in the posterior segments of the dentition: outcome of submerged/non-submerged healing. A 5-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:429-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01493.x
  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. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322
  16. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:475-85.
  17. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, Dahlen G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Bra􀆆nemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:90-5. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070201.x
  18. Guindy JS, Besimo CE, Besimo R, Schiel H, Meyer J. Bacterial leakage into and from prefabricated screw-retained implant-borne crowns in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:403-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00261.x
  19. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, Buser D, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82:232-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200316
  20. Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:186-98. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.2.186
  21. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001001.x
  22. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:559-71. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120603.x
  23. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:568-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00230.x
  24. Benkow HH. A new principle and appliance for radiographic tooth measurements. J Dent Res 1957;36:641-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345570360042101
  25. Rosling B, Hollender L, Nyman S, Olsson G. A radiographic method for assessing changes in alveolar bone height following periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1975;2:211-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1975.tb01744.x
  26. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of conebeam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75-80.
  27. Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P, Mu¨ller S, Mueller-Lisse UG. Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:198-203. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/32579161
  28. 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.
  29. Levin L, Pathael S, Dolev E, Schwartz-Arad D. Aesthetic versus surgical success of single dental implants: 1- to 9-year follow-up. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17:533-8.
  30. Esposito M, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K. Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Bra􀆆nemark implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040306.x
  31. Hanggi MP, Hanggi DC, Schoolfield JD, Meyer J, Cochran DL, Hermann JS. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: A retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol 2005;76:791-802. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.5.791
  32. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:119-28. https://doi.org/10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.119

피인용 문헌

  1. Cortical and cancellous bone thickness on the anterior region of alveolar bone in Korean: a study of dentate human cadavers vol.4, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.146
  2. The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion vol.42, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.5.173
  3. The Thickness of Alveolar Bone at the Mandibular Canine and Premolar Teeth in Normal Occlusion vol.25, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000767
  4. Fate of the buccal bone at implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction analyzed by cone beam CT: 10-year results from a randomized, controlled, clinical study vol.26, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12424
  5. Replacement of severely traumatized teeth with immediate implants and immediate loading: literature review and case reports vol.31, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12201
  6. Factors affecting the possibility to detect buccal bone condition around dental implants using cone beam computed tomography vol.28, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12921
  7. Radiographic evaluation of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized abutment of implant vol.55, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.3.258
  8. Assessment of Bone Dimensions in the Anterior Maxilla: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study pp.1059941X, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12675
  9. Influence of the anterior arch shape and root position on root angulation in the maxillary esthetic area vol.49, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2019.49.2.123
  10. The application of a newly designed L‐shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study vol.21, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12726
  11. Immediate implant placement and provisionalization: Aesthetic outcome 1 year after implant placement. A prospective clinical multicenter study vol.22, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12883
  12. Facial alveolar bone alterations and gray value changes based on cone beam computed tomography around maxillary anterior implants: A clinical retrospective study of 1–3 years vol.31, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13583
  13. Comparison of Immediate Implant Placement Following Extraction with and Without Socket-Shield Technique in Esthetic Region vol.19, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01272-3
  14. Evaluation of the association between gingival phenotype and alveolar bone thickness: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.133, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2021.105287