Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of Crestal Bone Resorption of the TiUnite(R) Anodized Implant System

  • Kim, Young-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry Section, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Ahn, Min-Seok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry Section, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Yang-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry Section, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yun, Pil-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry Section, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • Published : 2008.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : This study sought to examine the aspects of crestal bone resorption and to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the TiUnite$^{(R)}$ (Nobel Biocare, Sweden) anodized implant system. Materials and Methods : Among the 67 patients (211 fixtures) who were treated using TiUnite(r) implants at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between March 2004 and January 2007, 26 (91 fixtures) were considered in this study. Initial and secondary stabilities were measured using Periotest$^{(R)}$ and Ostell(tm) Mentor. The radiographic evaluation of crestal bone resorption was carried out by measuring the change in crestal bone level at the time of surgery compared to that 1 year after loading. Panoramic radiograph and periapical radiograph were used. Based on the radiographic findings, the shapes of crestal bone resorption were classified. Results : The average amount of crestal bone resorption after 1 year of functional implant loading was 0.30 mm. There was no saucerization in 40 implant fixtures (43.9%), although more than 1 thread were exposed in 51 implant fixtures (56.6%). The success rate of the implants was 94.5%, and the survival rate was 100%. Conclusions : Good clinical outcomes and minor crestal bone resorption were noted in this study. Saucerization for the establishment of biological width was not a general finding in the TiUnite$^{(R)}$ anodized implant system.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Adell R, Breine U et al. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses: part I. experimental studies. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1969; 3(2):81-100. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699
  2. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 2 -- review focusing on the clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004; 17:544-564.
  3. Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2006; 19(4):319-328.
  4. Aalam AA, Nowzari H. Clinical evaluation of dental implants with surfaces roughened by anodic oxidation, dual acid-etched implants, and machined implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2005; 20(5):793-798.
  5. Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. Analysis of 164 titanium oxidesurface implants in completely edentulous arches for fixed prosthesis anchorage using the pterygomaxillary region. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2005; 20(6):946-952.
  6. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. Long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: review and proposed criteria for success. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1986; 1(1):11-25.
  7. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for the success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet. Dent. 1989; 62(5):567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90081-4
  8. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Toward optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet. Dent. 1998; 80:639-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70047-2
  9. Hermann F, Lerner H, Palti A. Factors influencing the preservation of the peri-implant marginal bone. Implant Dent. 2007; 16(2):165- 175. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318065aa81
  10. Todescan FF, Pustiglioni FE, Imbronito AV et al. Influence of the microgap on the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study using dogs. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2002; 17(4):467-472.
  11. Chun HJ, Shin HS, Han CH, Lee SH. Influence of the implant abutment type on stress distribution in bone under various loading conditions using finite element analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2006; 21:195-202.
  12. Tarnow T, Elian N, Fletcher P et al. Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J. Periodontol. 2003; 74(12):1785-1788. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.12.1785
  13. Schupbach P, Glauser R, Rocci A et al. Human bone-oxidized titanium implant interface: light microscopic, scanning electron microscopic, back-scatter scanning electron microscopic, and energy-dispersive x-ray study of clinically retrieved dental implants. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2005; 7 )Suppl 1):S36-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00073.x
  14. Kozlovsky A, Tal G, Laufer BZ et al. Impact of implant overloading on the peri-implant bone in inflamed and non-inflamed peri-implant mucosa. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(5):601-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01374.x
  15. van Steenberghe D, Naert , R. Jacobs, and M. Quirynen. Influence of inflammatory reactions vs. occlusal loading on the peri-implant marginal bone level. Adv. Dent. Res. 1999; 13:130-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130010201
  16. S. Hansson. 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
  17. P. Astrand, B. Engquist, S. Dahlgren, K. Grondahl, E. Engquist, and H. Feldmann. Astra Tech and Branemark System implants: 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(4):413-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
  18. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A et al. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1998; 40(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199804)40:1<1::AID-JBM1>3.0.CO;2-Q
  19. Froberg KK, Lindh C, Ericsson I. Immediate loading of Branemark System Implants: comparison between TiUnite and turned implants placed in the anterior mandible. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2006; 8(4):187-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00017.x
  20. Jungner M, Lundqvist P, Lundgren S. Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare TiUnite) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare mark III) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two-stage protocol. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:308-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x
  21. Glauser R, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J et al. Immediate occlusal loading of Branemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2003; 5 (Suppl 1):47-56.
  22. Olsson M, Urde G, Andersen JB, Sennerby L. Early loading of maxillary fixed cross-arch dental prostheses supported by six or eight oxidized titanium implants: results after 1 year of loading, case series. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2003; 5 (suppl 1):81-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00019.x
  23. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Branemark system's TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2003; 5 (Suppl 1):57-63.
  24. Calandriello R, Tomatis M, Vallone R et al. Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using Branemark system's Wide-Platform TiUnite implants: interim report of a prospective openended clinical multicenter study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2003; 5 (Suppl) 1:74-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00018.x
  25. Vanden Bogaerde L, Pedretti G, Dellacasa P et al. Early function of splinted implants in maxillas and posterior mandibles using Branemark system's Tiunite implants: an 18-month prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2004; 6:121-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00219.x
  26. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:581-584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01398.x