Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지

Clinical Study on the Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Resorption of Short Implants

짧은 임플란트의 생존율과 변연골 흡수량에 관한 임상적 연구

  • Myung, Tae-Soo (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Biomaterials.Implant, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Jung, Seung-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Biomaterials.Implant, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Young (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Biomaterials.Implant, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kim, Yu-Lee (Department of Prosthodontics and Institute of Biomaterials.Implant, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 명태수 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학 교실 및 생체재료.매식연구소) ;
  • 정승현 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학 교실 및 생체재료.매식연구소) ;
  • 김태영 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학 교실 및 생체재료.매식연구소) ;
  • 김유리 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학 교실 및 생체재료.매식연구소)
  • Received : 2012.01.25
  • Accepted : 2012.03.25
  • Published : 2012.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Short implants are used in parts which have anatomical structures like maxillary sinus, inferior alveolar nerve and limited alveolar height due to severe alveolar bone resorption. In these case, there are no need of additional bone augmentation so there are advantages like reduced entire treatment time, reduced patient's discomfort and protection of important anatomical structures. The aim of this study is, in implants whose length is less than 10mm, to analyze the impact of implant length, diameter, location of implant placement, presence of bone graft, presence of prosthesis splinting on survival rates and marginal bone resorption. The samples used in this study were 227 implants, less than 10mm, placed in 137 patients in Wonkwang university dental hospital implant center. From dental charts the information about implant length, diameter, location of implant placement, presence of bone graft, presence of prosthesis splinting were obtained. Emago advanced v5.6(Oral diagnostic systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)program was used to measure the amount of marginal bone resorption. Out of total 227 implants, resulting in 96.5 % of survival rate. There was a tendency toward higher failure rates for the maxilla and bone graft site. No significant difference in marginal bone resorption was found associated with length of implants(p>0.05) and neither with the diameter of implants. Among the risk factors examined, more failure rates of short implants can be attributed to poor bone quality in the maxilla and presence of bone graft. At implants under 10mm, length, diameter, location of implant placement, bone graft and splinting of prosthesis didn't affect marginal bone loss.

짧은 임플란트는 상악동이나 하치조신경 등의 해부학적 구조물이 있거나 심한 치조골 흡수로 인해 제한적인 치조제 높이를 가지는 부위에서 사용되고 있다. 본 연구는 길이 10 mm 이하의 임플란트에서 임플란트의 길이, 직경, 식립 부위, 골이식술 유무, 보철물의 연결고정 유무가 임플란트의 생존율과 변연골 흡수에 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 하였다. 원광대학교 치과병원 임플란트센터에서 길이 10 mm 이하의 임플란트를 식립한 137명의 환자, 227개 임플란트를 대상으로 진료 기록부를 통해 임플란트의 길이, 직경, 식립 위치, 골이식 유무, 보철물의 연결고정 유무를 조사하였다. 변연골 흡수량은 Emago advanced v5.6(Oral diagnostic systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 프로그램을 이용하여 측정하였다. 총 227개의 임플란트 중 8개가 실패하여, 전체 짧은 임플란트의 생존율은 96.5 %로 나타났다. 골이식 부위와 상악에 식립된 경우 더 높은 실패율을 보이는 경향이 있었으며, 임플란트의 길이와 직경은 변연골 흡수량에 영향을 미치지 않았다. 실패 요인을 조사하였을 때, 상악의 불량한 골질과 골이식 유무가 임플란트의 더 높은 실패율에 영향을 미쳤다. 10 mm 이하 임플란트에서 길이, 직경, 식립 부위, 골이식술과 보철물의 연결 고정은 임플란트 생존율과 변연골 흡수량에 영향을 끼치지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthinton P, Eriksson AR. The long term efficiency of currently used dental implants : A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11-25.
  2. Buser D, Mericske-stern R, Dula K, Lang N.P. Clinical experience with one-stage, non-submerged dental implants. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13:153-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130010501
  3. Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with osseointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Walfare. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50:114-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90176-2
  4. das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR. Short implants-An analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:86-93.
  5. Proussaefs P. Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation prior to inferior alveolar nerve repositioning: A patient report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20:296-301.
  6. Peleg M, Mazor Z, Chaushu G. Lateralization of the inferior alveolar nerve with simultaneous implant placement: A modified technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:101-106.
  7. Cordaro L, Torsello F. Inlay-Onlay grafting for threedimensional reconstruction of the posterior atrophic maxilla with mandibular bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:350-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.02.016
  8. Grant B, Pancko F, Kraut R. Outcomes of Placing Short Dental Implants in the Posterior Mandible: A Retrospective Study of 124 Cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:713-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.11.004
  9. Friberg B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brånemark implants. Clin Imp Dent Relat Res. 2000;2:184-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00116.x
  10. Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7:513-522.
  11. Tawil G, Younan R. Clinical evaluation of short, machined-surface implants followed for 12 to 92 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:894-901.
  12. Testori T, Wiseman L, Woolfe S, Porter SS. A prospective multicenter clinical study of the Osseotite implant: Four-year interim report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:193-200.
  13. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: Results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:417-423.
  14. Fugazzotto PA. Shorter implants in clinical practice: Rationale and treatment results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:487-496.
  15. Kwon JY, Kim YS, Kim CW. Assessing changes of peri-implant bone using digital substraction radiography. J Korean AcadProsthont. 2001;39:273-80.
  16. Bittar-Cortez JA, Passeri LA, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. Comparison of peri-implant bone level assessment in digitized conventional radiographs and digital subtraction images. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006;35:258-62. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/84778143
  17. Lekholm U, Zarb G. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb G, Albrektsson T. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Chicago: Quintessence. 1985:199-209.
  18. Lekholm U, van Steenberghe D, Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially endentulous jaws: A prospective 5-years multicenter study. Int J oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:627-35.
  19. Bahat O. Treatment planning and placement of implants in the posteriormaxillae: Report of 732 consecutive Nobelpharma implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8:151-61.
  20. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. & van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implantsupported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part I: a longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2002;13:381-89. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130406.x
  21. Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andresson B. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:486-94.
  22. 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 Imp Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:16-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00023.x
  23. Goené R, Bianchesi C, Hürzeler 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 Dentistry. 2005;14:274-280. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000173335.90854.d8
  24. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M. & Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:247-259.
  25. Pierrisnard L, Renouard F, Renault P, Barquins M. Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution. Clin Imp Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:254-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00208.x
  26. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2006;17:35-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01349.x
  27. Hertel R, Kalk W. Influence of the dimensions of implant superstructure on peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont. 1993;6:18-24.
  28. Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Jan;91:20-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008
  29. Ivanoff CJ, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-years retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 13:173-180.
  30. Lekholm U, Guune J. Survival of Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: A 10-years prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:639-45.
  31. Hass R, Mensdorff-Poui N. Survival of 1920 IMZ implants followed for up to 100 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:400-06.
  32. Yang TC, Yoshinobu M, Tomoya G. Biomechanical Rationale for Short Implants in Splinted Restorations: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24:130-132.
  33. Heo MS, Lee SS, Lee KH, Choi HM, Choi SC, Park TW. Assessment of apical root resorption using digital subtraction radiography. Korean J Oral MaxillofacRadiol. 2001;31:51-5.