Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 38
  • /
  • Pages.30.1-30.6
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter

  • Ku, Jeong-Kui (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yi, Yang-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yun, Pil-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • Received : 2016.05.21
  • Accepted : 2016.06.27
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of failure. The clinical outcome of ultrawide implants of more than 6 mm in diameter was evaluated through a retrospective study. Methods: The investigation was conducted on patients who had received ultrawide implant (${\geq}6mm$ diameter) placements in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 2008 to December 2013. Complications were investigated during the maintenance period, and marginal bone loss was measured using periapical radiography. Primary stability immediately after the implant placement and second stability after second surgery or during impression were measured using $Osstell^{(R)}$ Mentor (Osstell, Sweden) as an implant stability quotient (ISQ). Results: Fifty-eight implants were placed in 53 patients (30 male, 23 female), and they were observed for an average of $50.06{\pm}23.49$ months. The average ISQ value increased from $71.22{\pm}10.26$ to $77.48{\pm}8.98$ (P < 0.005). The primary and secondary stability shows significantly higher at the mandible than at the maxilla (P < 0.001). However, mean survival rate shows 98.28 %. Average marginal bone loss of 0.018 and 0.045 mm were measured at 12 and 24 months after the loading and 0.14 mm at final follow-up date (mean 46.25 months), respectively. Also in this study, the bone loss amount was noticeably small compared to regular implants reported in previous studies. Conclusions: The excellent clinical outcome of ultrawide implants was confirmed. It was determined that an ultrawide implant can be used as an alternative when the bone quality in the posterior teeth is relatively low or when a previous implant has failed.

Keywords

References

  1. Haas R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G, Watzek G (1996) Survival of 1,920 IMZ implants followed for up to 100 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:581-588
  2. Bischof M, Nedir R, Szmukler-Moncler S, Bernard J-P, Samson J (2004) Implant stability measurement of delayed and immediately loaded implants during healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:529-539 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01042.x
  3. Javed F, Romanos GE (2015) Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla : a systemic review. Clin Oral Invest 19:1-10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1333-z
  4. Ivanoff CJ, Grondahl K, Sennerby L, Bergstrom C, Lekholm U (1999) Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:173-180
  5. Attard NJ, Zarb GA (2013) Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 89:352-559
  6. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Weaver AL, Lohse CM (2001) Early experience with wide-platform Mk II implants. Part I: implant survival. Part II: evaluation of risk factors involving implant survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:208-216
  7. Small PN, Tarnow DP (2000) Gingival recession around implants: a 1-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:527-532
  8. He J, Shang YW, Deng CF, Shang DH, Zhang C, Wang DN, Zhao BH (2014) A clinical retrospective analysis of dental implants replaced in previously failed site. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 23:196-200
  9. Nelissen RC, den Besten CA, Mylanus EA, Hol MK (2016) Stability, survival and tolerability of a 4.5-mm-wide bone-anchored hearing implant: 6-month data from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:105-111 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3593-x
  10. Muftu A, Chapman RJ (1998) Replacing posterior teeth with freestanding implants: four-year prosthodontic results of a prospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 129:1097-1102 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0384
  11. Truhlar RS, Orenstein IH, Morris HF, Ochi S (1997) Distribution of bone quality in patients receiving endosseous dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:38-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(16)31196-X
  12. Roos J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Grondahl K, Albrektsson T (1997) A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Branemark implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:504-514
  13. Jaffin RA, Berman CL (1991) The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol 62:2-4 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2
  14. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bozdag E, Sunbuloglu E, Kutay O (2010) Influence of surgical technique, implant shape and diameter on the primary stability in cancellous bone. J Oral Rehabil 37:900-907 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02117.x
  15. Barikani H, Rashtak S, Akbari S, Badri S, Daneshparvar N, Rokn A (2013) The effect of implant length and diameter on the primary stability in different bone types. J Dent (Tehran) 10:449-455
  16. Vandeweghe S, De Ferrerre R, Tschakaloff A, De Bruyn H (2011) A widebody implant as an alternative for sinus lift or bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:67-74
  17. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (1998) Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 80:641 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70048-4
  18. Bardyn T, Gedet P, Hallermann W, Buchler P (2009) Quantifying the influence of bone density and thickness on resonance frequency analysis: an in vitro study of biomechanical test materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24:1006-1014
  19. Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A (2012) Primary stability determination by means of insertion torque and RFA in a sample of 4,135 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:501-507
  20. Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K (2012) Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:832-836 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x
  21. Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Ree A, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, Hammerle CHF (2004) Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate functional occlusal loading. Successful versus failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:428-434 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01036.x
  22. Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C, Rangert B, Lekholm U (1997) Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 26:141-148
  23. Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(Suppl 2):8-18.
  24. Hansson S, Werke M (2013) The implant thread as a retention element in cortical bone: the effect of thread size and thread profile: a finite element study. J Biomech 36:1247-1458
  25. Sato Y, Shindoi N, Hosokawa R, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y (2000) A biomechanical effect of wide implant placement and offset placement of three implants in the posterior partially edentulous region. J Oral Rehabil 27:15-21 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00475.x
  26. Santiago JFJ, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS (2013) Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 33:4700-4714 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2013.07.027
  27. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G (2008) The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 100:422-431 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60259-0
  28. Choi YS (2014) Clinical assessment to the dental treatment of bruxism: literature review. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 30:36-44 https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2014.30.1.36
  29. Lee JY, Lee WC, Kim MS, Kim JE, Shin SW (2012) The influence of implant diameter, length and design changes on implant stability quotient (ISQ) value in artificial bone. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 50:292-298 https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.4.292
  30. Sim CP, Lang NP (2000) Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during implant tissue integration: I. Instrument positioning, bone structure, implant length. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:598-604
  31. Krennmair G, Waldenberger O (2004) Clinical analysis of wide-diameter frialit-2 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:710-715
  32. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ (2011) A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 38:667-676 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01736.x

Cited by

  1. Factors Influencing Primary and Secondary Implant Stability-A Retrospective Cohort Study with 582 Implants in 272 Patients vol.10, pp.22, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228084
  2. Effect of Surgical Instrumentation Variables on the Osseointegration of Narrow- and Wide-Diameter Short Implants vol.79, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.09.041