대한치과보철학회지 (The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics)

  • 제59권4호
  • /
  • Pages.405-414
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 0301-2875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-3789(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

SLA surface를 가진 taper straight designed implant의 방사선학적 평가와 생존율: 1년 추적 관찰을 통한 후향적 연구

Radiologic evaluation and survival rate of taper-straight designed implant with SLA surface: A 1-year follow-up retrospective study

  • 김지은 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원) ;
  • 김예슬 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원) ;
  • 김옥수 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 치주과학교실, 치의학연구소)
  • Kim, Jee Eun (School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Ye Seul (School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Ok-Su (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.06.29
  • 심사 : 2021.08.13
  • 발행 : 2021.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 이번 연구는 최근 시판되고 있는 국내산 taper straight 타입의 SLA surface를 가진 임플란트의 변연골 흡수도와 생존율을 평가하여 임상적 유용성을 알아보기 위해 시행하였다. 대상 및 방법: 전남대학교 치과병원 치주과에서 2016년 8월부터 2019년 12월까지 KISPLANT®가 식립된 성인남녀 83명의 125개의 임플란트 중 포함 기준을 충족시키는 19명의 40개의 임플란트를 1년 동안의 관찰 대상으로 하였다. 처음과 1년 후의 치근단 방사선 사진에서 변연골 수준을 측정하고, 이를 이용하여 임플란트 생존율과 성공률을 분석하였다. 또한 치주염 심도, SPT, 식립 부위, 치아 발거 이유, 즉시 식립 여부, 전신질환에 따라 변연골 흡수도에 유의한 차이가 있는지를 확인하기 위해 t-test를 수행하였다. 결과: 근심측 변연골 흡수도는 0.74 ± 1.07 mm, 원심측 변연골 흡수도는 0.53 ± 1.04 mm로 나타났다. 1년 동안 40개의 임플란트 중 3개의 임플란트에서 2 mm 이상의 변연골 흡수가 일어나 임플란트 성공률은 92.5%이고 생존율은 100%이었다. t-test를 수행한 결과 근심측 변연골 흡수도와 식립 부위에서 유의한 차이가 있었고 나머지 요인에서는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 결론: 이번 연구에서 변연골 흡수도와 성공률, 생존율을 평가해 본 결과 임플란트 식립 1년 후 높은 생존율과 성공률을 보였고 낮은 변연골 흡수도를 보여 taper straight 타입의 SLA surface를 가진 임플란트는 우수한 임상 결과를 보였다.

Purpose. This study was conducted to evaluate clinical usefulness by evaluating the marginal bone resorption and survival rate of an implant with a taper straight type SLA surface domestically available on the market recently. Materials and methods. 40 implants satisfying the including criteria were observed for one year of 125 implants of 83 adult men and women who had KISPLANT® implanted from August 2016 to December 2019 at the Department of Periodontology, Chonnam National University Dental Hospital. The marginal bone level was measured on periapical radiographs taken initially and 1 year later and we analyzed implant survival and success rates. A t-test was used for the analysis of the association between the marginal bone resorption and the severity of periodontitis, supportive periodontal therapy, the inserted site, the cause of extraction, immediate placement, and systemic disease. Results. After 1 year of loading, the mesial bone resorption was 0.74 ± 1.07 mm, and the distal bone resorption was 0.53 ± 1.04 mm. The marginal bone resorption of 2 mm or more occurred at 3 implants out of 40 implants after 1 year, so the success rate of implant was 92.5% and survival rate was 100%. There was a significant difference in mesial marginal bone resorption according to the inserted site and no significant differences were found between marginal bone resorption and the other factors. Conclusion. As a result of marginal bone resorption, success rate, and survival rate in this study, we found little marginal bone resorption and high survival and success rate. It can be concluded that they represent excellent clinical results.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 연구되었음(NRF-2019R1A5A2027521).

참고문헌

  1. Im SS. A study on the Utilization of National Health Insurance Care Benefit for the elderly denture and dental implants. Ph.D Thesis, Graduate School of Konyang University, 2020.
  2. Lee DH. An analysis of the growth and marketing strategies of osstemImplant. Ph.D Thesis, Department of Medical Device Management and Research, Sungkyunkwan University, 2019.
  3. Kim MJ. A comparative study on the cumulative survival rate of the external hex implants: Neoplant® & 3i-Osseotite® and changes of the peri-implant marginal bone. Ph.D Thesis, Ewha Womans University, 2005.
  4. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:85-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00110.x
  5. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;40:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199804)40:1<1::AID-JBM1>3.0.CO;2-Q
  6. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, da Silva EV, Bonatto Lda R, dos Santos DM. Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;19:229-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-015-0494-5
  7. Seong DJ, Hong SJ, Ha SR. External vs internal implant. J Korean Dent Assoc 2016;54:184-90. https://doi.org/10.22974/JKDA.2016.54.3.001
  8. Ten Bruggenkate CM, van der Kwast WA, Oosterbeek HS. Success criteria in oral implantology. A review of the literature. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;7:45-51.
  9. Fourmousis I, Bragger U. Radiologic interpretation of peri-implant structures. Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Periodontology: Implant Dentistry 1999;3:228-41.
  10. Mei DM, Zhao B, Xu H, Wang Y. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of rooted, platform-switched, microthreaded implants with a sandblasted, largegrid, and acid-etched surface: A 5-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:1074-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12543
  11. Yoo JH. Effect of initial placement level and wall thickness on maintenance of the marginal bone level in implants with a conical implant-abutment interface. Ph.D Thesis, Graduate School, Yonsei University, 2020.
  12. 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.
  13. Norton MR, Astrom M. The influence of implant surface on maintenance of marginal bone levels for three premium implant brands: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35:1099-111. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8393
  14. Song MJ. Retrospective study on survival and marginal bone loss of short implants: clinical results after 2-4 years. Ph.D Thesis, Dankook University, 2016.
  15. An HS. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Neoplant implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface and external connection. Ph.D Thesis, Graduate School, Yonsei University, 2007.
  16. Nam KY. Two-year retrospective study on the clinical success of the Korean implant systems. Ph.D Thesis, Kangneung National University, 2003.
  17. Hwang JM, Kim YK. Retrospective study of implantium® dental implants : clinical and radiographic results of 22 months. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;9:30-40.
  18. Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:204-11.
  19. Penarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchis JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer J. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:861-7.
  20. Tada S, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, Miyakawa O, Kusakari H. Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:357-68.
  21. Zitzmann NU, Scharer P, Marinello CP. Long-term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:355-66.