Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

  • 제45권1호
  • /
  • Pages.23-29
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2093-2278(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-2286(eISSN)
대한치주과학회 (Korean Academy of Periodontology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Complication incidence of two implant systems up to six years: a comparison between internal and external connection implants

  • Chae, Sung-Wook (Department of Periodontics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Young-Sung (Department of Periodontics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Yong-Moo (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Won-Kyung (Department of Periodontics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Lee, Young-Kyoo (Department of Periodontics, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Su-Hwan (Department of Periodontics, Asan Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2014.11.10
  • 심사 : 2014.12.31
  • 발행 : 2015.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and the incidence of postloading complications (PLCs) between a bone-level internal connection system (ICS-BL) and an external connection system (ECS). Methods: The medical records of patients treated with either a ICS-BL or ECS between 2007 and 2010 at Asan Medical Center were reviewed. PLCs were divided into two categories: biological and technical. Biological complications included >4 mm of probing pocket depth, thread exposure in radiographs, and soft tissue complications, whereas technical complications included chipping of the veneering material, fracture of the implant, fracture of the crown, loosening or fracture of the abutment or screw, loss of retention, and loss of access hole filling material. CSRs were determined by a life-table analysis and compared using the log-rank chi-square test. The incidence of PLC was compared with the Pearson chi-squared test. Results: A total of 2,651 implants in 1,074 patients (1,167 ICS-BLs in 551 patients and 1,484 ECSs in 523 patients) were analyzed. The average observation periods were 3.4 years for the ICS-BLs and 3.1 years for the ECSs. The six-year CSR of all implants was 96.1% (94.9% for the ICS-BLs and 97.1% for the ECSs, P=0.619). Soft tissue complications were more frequent with the ECSs (P=0.005) and loosening or fracture of the abutment or screw occurred more frequently with the ICS-BLs (P<0.001). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the ICS-BL was more prone to technical complications while the ECS was more vulnerable to biological complications.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Branemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindstrom J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81-100. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699
  2. Astrand P, Ahlqvist J, Gunne J, Nilson H. Implant treatment of patients with edentulous jaws: a 20-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10:207-17.
  3. Lekholm U, Grondahl 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
  4. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Grondahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Branemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:413-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
  5. Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:51-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80229-X
  6. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-Integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1985.
  7. Finger IM, Castellon P, Block M, Elian N. The evolution of external and internal implant/abutment connections. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003;15:625-32.
  8. Misch K, Wang HL. Implant surgery complications: etiology and treatment. Implant Dent 2008;17:159-68. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181752f61
  9. Sutter F, Weber HP, Sorensen J, Belser UC. The new restorative concept of the ITI dental implant system: design and engineering. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;13:409-31.
  10. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:75-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
  11. Cha HS, Kim YS, Jeon JH, Lee JH. Cumulative survival rate and complication rates of single-tooth implant; focused on the coronal fracture of fixture in the internal connection implant. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:595-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12065
  12. Binon PP, McHugh MJ. The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:511-9.
  13. Dailey B, Jordan L, Blind O, Tavernier B. Axial displacement of abutments into implants and implant replicas, with the tapered cone-screw internal connection, as a function of tightening torque. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:251-6.
  14. Kim KS, Lim YJ, Kim MJ, Kwon HB, Yang JH, Lee JB, et al. Variation in the total lengths of abutment/implant assemblies generated with a function of applied tightening torque in external and internal implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:834-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02063.x
  15. Lee JH, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cho LR. Axial displacements in external and internal implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e83-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12062
  16. Gracis S, Michalakis K, Vigolo P, Vult von Steyern P, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:202-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02556.x
  17. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:102-10.
  18. Buser D, von Arx T, ten Bruggenkate C, Weingart D. Basic surgical principles with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11 Suppl 1:59-68.
  19. van Steenberghe D, De Mars G, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, Naert I. A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:202-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x
  20. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:2-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
  21. Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:39-49.
  22. Koo KT, Lee EJ, Kim JY, Seol YJ, Han JS, Kim TI, et al. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis. J Periodontol 2012;83:1104-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110456
  23. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:22-38.
  24. 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.
  25. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Grondahl K. Astra Tech and Branemark System implants: a prospective 5-year comparative study. Results after one year. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 1999;1:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00087.x
  26. Squier RS, Psoter WJ, Taylor TD. Removal torques of conical, tapered implant abutments: the effects of anodization and reduction of surface area. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:24-7.

피인용 문헌

  1. Fracture Resistance of Implant Abutments Following Abutment Alterations by Milling the Margins: An In Vitro Study vol.42, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-16-00010
  2. Layered approach with autogenous bone and bone substitute for ridge augmentation on implant dehiscence defects in dogs vol.27, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12649
  3. Loosening of the fixing screw in single implant crowns: predisposing factors, prevention and treatment options vol.29, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12303
  4. A 5-year prospective clinical study of Neobiotech implants for partially edentulous patients vol.55, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.3.272
  5. Mechanism of and factors associated with the loosening of the implant abutment screw: A review vol.31, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12494
  6. Rotational tolerances of a titanium abutment in the as-received condition and after screw tightening in a conical implant connection vol.13, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.6.343