대한치과보철학회지 (The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics)

  • 제46권2호
  • /
  • Pages.169-174
  • /
  • 2008
  • /
  • 0301-2875(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-3789(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지

두 종의 external hex implant의 변연골 흡수에 관한 연구 : 예비연구 (preliminary study)

Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone resorption around two types of external hex implants : preliminary study

  • 이지은 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 허성주 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 곽재영 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 김성균 (서울대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 한종현 (연세대학교 영동세브란스 치과보철과)
  • Lee, Ji-Eun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Chong-Hyun (Department of Prsthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yongdong Severance Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 발행 : 2008.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 치과 임플랜트 주위의 변연골 변화는 임플랜트의 기능적인 유지 뿐만 아니라 심미적 성공을 위해서도 중요하다. 변연골의 유지를 위한 임플랜트 디자인이 연구되고 있다. 이번 예비 연구는 두 종류의 external hex implant 시스템에서 임플랜트의 상부 미세 나사산이 변연골 변화량에 미치는 영향을 평가하고자 한다. 재료 및 방법: 총 24명의 환자를 대상으로 $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ 임플랜트 식립군 (1군, 거친 표면 임플랜트, 20개)과 원플란트 임플랜트 식립군 (2군, 미세나사산을 가진 거친 표면 임플랜트, 20개)으로 분류하였다. 기준 시점 (임플랜트 부하)과 부하를 가한 1년 뒤 임상적, 방사선학적 검사를 시행하였다. UTHSCSA Image Tool을 이용하여 임플랜트-보철 경계부로부터 변연골 높이 변화량으로 계측하였다. 계측치는 SAS 프로그램을 이용하여 three-level ANCOVA로 통계처리 하였다. 결과: 기준 시점과 비교하여 1년 기능 후, 두 그룹 간의 변연골 소실 변화량에 있어서 통계학적으로 유의한 차이가 있었다 (P<0.05). 1군의 평균 변연골 높이 변화량은 $0.83{\pm}0.31mm$, 2군에 있어서는 $0.44{\pm}0.36mm$ 이었다. 미세나사산을 가진 거친 표면 임플랜트가 미세나 사산을 가지지 않은 거친 표면 임플랜트 보다 더 적은 변연골 소실 변화량을 보였다. 결론: 미세나사산을 가진 거친 표면 임플랜트가 기능적 부하 후 변연골 높이를 유지하는데 있어 더 유리한 디자인으로 보인다.

Statement of problem: Changes of the marginal bone around dental implants have significance not only for the functional maintenance but also for the esthetic success of the implant. It was proposed that bone-retention elements such as microthreads at the coronal part of implant might help maintain the marginal bone level. Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of microthread configuration within the marginal coronal portion of the implant fixture at the marginal bone changes after loading around two different external hex implants. Material and methods: Twenty-four patients were included and randomly assigned to treatment with $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ system implants (Group 1, rough-surfaced implants, n=20) and Oneplant system implants (Group 2, rough-surfaced neck with microthreads, n=20). Clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 1 year postloading. Data analysis was performed by the SAS statistical package version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and the final model was calculated by the MIXED procedure (three-level ANCOVA) for marginal bone change of each test group at baseline and 1 year follow-up. Results: Comparing to baseline, significant differences were noted in marginal bone level changes for the 2 groups at 1 year follow-up (P<0.05). Group 1 had a mean crestal bone level changes of $0.83{\pm}0.31mm$; Group 2 had a mean crestal bone level changes of $0.44{\pm}0.36mm$. Rough-surfaced with microthreads implants showed significantly less marginal bone loss than rough surfaced neck without microthread implants. Conclusion: A rough surface with microthreads at the implant was beneficial design to maintain the marginal bone level against functional loading.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson RA. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants. A review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25
  2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rocker B, Branemark P-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  3. Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  4. Oh TJ, Yoon JK, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss:Myth or science? J Periodontol 2002; 73:322-33 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322
  5. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1 year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8
  6. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  7. Hansson S. The implant neck: Smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394-405 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100506.x
  8. Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conicalfixture design. The influence of surface macro-and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090204.x
  9. Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhace bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:319-29
  10. Stanford CM, Schneider GB. Functional behavior of bone around dental implants. Gerodontology 2004;21:71-7 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2004.00006.x
  11. Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, Gunsoley J. A multicenter study comparing dual acid-etched and machinedsurfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontology 2001;72:1384-90 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1384
  12. Zechner W, Trinkl N, Watzak G, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Haas R, Watzek G. Radiologic follow-up of peri-implant bone loss around machine-surfaced and rough-surfaced interforaminal implants in the mandible functionally loaded for 3 to 7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:216-21
  13. Shin YK, Han CH, Heo SJ, Kim SJ, Chun HJ. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;20:789-94
  14. Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:465-70 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01302.x
  15. Wilke HJ. Claes L. Steinemann S. The influence of various titanium surfaces on the interface shear strength between implants and bone. Advances in Biomaterials 1990;9:309-14
  16. Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral lmplants Res 1997;8:173-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080303.x
  17. Karlsson U, Gotfredsen K, Olsson C. Single-tooth replacement by osseointegrated Astra Tech dental implants: a 2- year report. Int J Proshodont 1997;10:318-24
  18. Hansson S, Norton M. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone anchored implants: A biomechanical approach. In:Hansson S (ed). Toward and optimized dental implant and bridge design: a biomechanical approach [thesis]. Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 1997
  19. Guo EX. Mechanical properties of cortical and cancellous bone tissue. In:Cowin SC, ed. Bone mechanics handbook. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press; 2001;10:1-23