Browse > Article

Study on the radiographic evaluation of marginal bone loss around short-length implant after functional loading  

Park, Young-Ju (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Nam, Jeong-Hun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Noh, Kyung-Lok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Yeon, Byoung-Moo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Yu, Woo-Geun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Lee, Jeong-Won (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Ahn, Jang-Hun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Gang, Tae-In (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Park, Mi-Hee (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
Publication Information
The Journal of the Korean dental association / v.48, no.8, 2010 , pp. 615-620 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The short dental implant is considered as possible solution in the alveolar bone height deficient cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical availability of short implants by measuring the marginal bone loss of short length implants and comparing with that of conventional length implants. Materials and Methods: The groups were composed of patients who had received at least one implant. The samples of this study were selected from patients who with functional loading after prosthetic treatment for 1 year follow up period. The implants with a length of 5.7 mm and 6mm were considered short. (Bicon Dental implants, USA). The experiment group was composed of $4.5{\times}6mm$, $5{\times}6mm$, $6{\times}5.7mm$ implants (total 18 implants were placed in 14 patients, 8 on maxilla, 10 on mandible). The control group was composed of $4.5{\times}8mm$, $5{\times}8mm$, $4.5{\times}11mm$, $5{\times}11mm$. All implants were selected only by implants placed on molar area. We evaluated marginal bone loss in radiographic images at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, 12 months after loading. Additionally, crown-to-implant ratio was evaluated, and marginal bone loss according to crown-to-implant ratio after functional loading was analyzed. Results: The short implant group had a mean marginal bone level of $-0.52{\pm}0.69mm$; the 8mm group, $-0.22{\pm}0.82mm$; and the II mm group, $-0.10{\pm}1.09mm$ after I year of functional loading. But significant differences were not detected between three groups at every follow-up period. Crown-to-implant ratio in short implant group was $1.55{\pm}0.23$; 8mm group was $1.15{\pm}0.18$; and 11mm group was $0.92{\pm}0.15$. Additionally, significant differences between three groups were founded. (P<.0001) The greatest marginal bone loss after 1 year follow-up was founded at crown-to-implant ratio 1~1.49 range in short implant. Conclusion: The marginal bone loss of short implants was comparable to that of long implants. So, the short implants can be a clinically acceptable option.
Keywords
short implant; marginal bone loss; functional loading; Bicon implant; crown-to-implant ratio;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Testori T, Del Fabbro M, Feldman S, et al. A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2-month loaded osseotite implants placed in the posterior jaws:3-year follow up results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;2:154-161.
2 Lee TH, Kwon JH, Kim SJ, et al. An evaluation of marginal bone level change in single short implant: an 1-year follow up. Implantology Vol.13,No. 3 2009;134-140
3 Albrektsson T, Zard G, Worthinton 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
4 Schulte J. Flores AM. Weed M. Crown-to-implant ratios of single tooth implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2007 Jul;98(1):1-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Gentile MA. Survival Estimates and Risk factor for failure with 6"-5.7mm Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:930-937
6 Friberg B, Grondhal K, Lekholm U, Branemark P-I. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Branemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002;2:184-189
7 Bruggenkate CM, Asikainen P, Foitzik C, Krekeler G, Sutter F. Short (6-mm) nonsubmerged dental implants: results of a Multicenter clinical trial of 1 to 7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1998 Nov-Dec;13(6):791-8.
8 Fugazzotto PA. Shorter implants in clinical practice: rationale and treatment results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 May-Jun;23(3):487-96.
9 Teixeira ER, Wadamoto M, Akagawa Y, Kimoto T. Clinical application of short hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants to the posterior mandible: a fiveyear survival study. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Aug;78(2):166-71.   DOI   ScienceOn