The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHICAL EVALUATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED FIXED PARTIAL PROSTHESES

임플랜트 지지 고정성 국소의치의 임상적, 방사선학적 평가

  • Seo Ji-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Shim June-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee Jae-Hoon (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 서지영 (연세대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 심준성 (연세대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 이재훈 (연세대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 이근우 (연세대학교 치과대학 보철학교실)
  • Published : 2006.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: A conventional 3-unit fixed partial denture design with a pontic between two retainers is the most commonly used. However in cases where the mental nerve is in close proximity to the second premolar, a cantilever design can be considered. As such, logical and scientific evidence is lacking for the number and position of implants to be placed for partially edentulous patients, and no clear-cut set of treatment principles currently exist. Purpose : The purpose of this study was to evaluate prognosis of implant-supported fixed partial dentures and to compare changes in bone level which may rise due to the different factors. Material and method : The present study examined radiographical marginal bone loss in patients treated with implant-supported fixed partial dentures (87 prostheses supported by 227 implants) and evaluated the influence of the span of the pontic, type of the opposing dentition. Clinical complications were studied using a retrospective method. Within the limitation of this study. the following result were drawn Result, 1. Seven of a total of 227 implants restored with fixed prostheses failed, resulting in a 96.9% success rate. 2. Complications encountered during recall appointments included dissolution of temporary luting agent (17 cases), porcelain fracture (8 cases), loosened screws (5 cases), gingival recession (4 cases), and gingival enlargement (1 case). 3. Marginal bone loss, 1 year after prosthesis placement, was significant(P<0.05) in the group that underwent bone grafting, however no difference in annual resorption rate was observed afterwards. 4. Marginal bono loss, 1 year post-placement, was greater in cantilever-type prostheses than in centric pontic protheses (P<0.05). 5. Marginal bone loss was more pronounced in posterior regions compared to anterior regions (P<0.05). 6. The degree of marginal bone loss was proportional to the length of the pontic (P<0.05). Conclusion: The success rate of implant-supported fixed partial dentures, including marginal bone loss, was satisfactory in the present study. Factors influencing marginal bone loss included whether bone graft was performed, location of the pontic (s), location of the surgical area in the arch pontic span. Long-term evaluation is necessary for implant-supported fixed partial dentures, as are further studies on the relationship between functional load and the number of implants to be placed.

Keywords

References

  1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark P-I, Jemt T. A long-term follow-up study of osseointegated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofacial implant 1990;5:347-359
  2. Albrektsson T. A multicenter report on osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:75-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90355-1
  3. Branemark PI, Zarb G, Albreksson T.Tissue integrated prosthesis.: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Quintessence 1995
  4. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993 ;8(6) :635-40
  5. Becker C, Kaiser D. Implant-retained cantilever fixed prosthesis: where and when. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:432-5 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.110259
  6. Shackleton JL, Carr L. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent 1994 Jan; 71 (1) :23-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90250-X
  7. Buser D, Belser UC, Lang NP. The original one-stage dental implant system and its clinical application. Periodontol 2000. 1998 Jun;17:106-18 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00128.x
  8. Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puser R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2000; 11 :465-475 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011005465.x
  9. Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 234-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.12.017
  10. Stegaroiu R, Sato T.,Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implant: A three-dimensional finite element analysis
  11. Brocard D, Barthet P, Baysse E, Duffort JF, Eller P, Justumus P, et al. A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Sep-Oct; 15(5) :691-700
  12. Weyant RJ, Burt BA. An assessment of survival rates and within-patient clustering of failures for endosseous oral implants. J Dent Res 1993 Jan;72(1) :2-8 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345930720010201
  13. Smith RA, Berger R, Dodson TB. Risk factors associated with dental implants in healthy and medically compromised patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992 Fall;7(3) :367-72
  14. Lekholm U, Hermann I, Folmer T, Henry P, Laney W. Osseointegrated implant in the treatment of partially edentulous jaw: a prospective 5-year multicenter study Int J Oral Maxillofacial implant 1994;9: 627-635
  15. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003; 14: 303-311 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.120905.x
  16. Gunne J, Jemt T, Linden B. Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: A report on prosthese after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:143-148
  17. Wong FY, Pal S, Saha S. The assessment of in vivo bone condition in humans by impact response measurement. J Biomech 1983; 16(10): 849-56 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(83)90009-X
  18. Caulier H, Naert I, Kalk W The relationship of some histologic parameters, radiographic evaluations, and Periotest measurements of oral implants: an experimental animal study. Int J Oral Maxillofacial implant 1997; 12: 380-386
  19. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002 Mar;73 (3): 322-33 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322
  20. Adell R, Lekholm U, RockIer B, Branemark P-I A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. lnt J Oral Surg 1981;10: 387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  21. Tashkandi EA, Lang BR, Edge MJ. Analysis of strain at selected bone sites of a cantilevered implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 1996 Aug;76(2): 158-64 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90300-5
  22. Becker W, Becker BE, Alsuwyed A, AlMubarak S. Long-term evaluation of 282 implants in maxillary and mandibular molar positions: a prospective study. J Periodontol 1999 Aug;70(8) :896-901 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1999.70.8.896
  23. Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Motomura Y, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on peri-implant tissue. Part III: A histologic study in monkeys. lnt J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 May-Jun; 15(3) :425-31
  24. Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Impl Res 1996;7: 143-152 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070208.x