Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF SHORT ROUGH SURFACE IMPLANTS

짧은 길이의 거친 표면 임프란트에 대한 후향적 연구

  • Kong, Jun-Ha (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School) ;
  • Lee, Baek-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School) ;
  • Kim, Yeo-Gab (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School) ;
  • Kwon, Yong-Dae (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School) ;
  • Yoon, Byung-Wook (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School) ;
  • Choi, Byung-Joon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KyungHee University Dental School)
  • 공준하 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 이백수 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김여갑 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 권용대 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 윤병욱 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 최병준 (경희대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Published : 2009.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Reduced bone height is one of the major problems faced in restoring tooth loss with implants. By the use of short implants, it is possible to reduce complicated and invasive treatment such as bone graft, allowing more simple surgery. But short implants are generally considered to have lower success rates than that of standard implants. Purpose: To assess the results of short Straumann implants by a retrospective study of short Straumann implants with TPS(titanium plasma-sprayed) and SLA(sandblasted, large grit, acid etched) surfaces. Materials and methods: 173 implants in 106 patients who received short Straumann implant surgery(${\le}8\;mm$) in the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Kyunghee Dental Hospital, from February 1996 to October 2006 were selected and studied. All of the implants were followed up after prosthetic rehabilitation. The average follow-up period was 34 months with 119 months as the longest follow up period. The average follow-up period after prosthetic rehabilitation was 31 months. 64 females(60.4%) and 42 males(39.6%) participated in the research with the age range of 19 to 85(mean age 47). 20 patients(18.9%) were under 40, 85 patients(80.2%) were over 40 and under 70, and only one patient(0.9%) was over 70 years old. Results: 27 implants(15.6%) had TPS surface while 146 implants(84.4%) had SLA surface. 9 implants(5.2%) were 3.3, 108 implans(62.4%) were 4.1mm and 56 implants(32.4%) were 4.8mm in diameter. 167 implants(96.5%) were 8mm and 6 implants(3.5%) were 6mm in length. There were 24 implants(13.9%) on the maxillas and 149 implants(68.8%) on the mandibles. 119 implants(68.8%) were rehabilitated with FPD(fixed partial denture), 47 implants(27.2%) with single crowns and 4 implants(2.3%) with overdentures. Among the fixed partial dentures, 30 of them were splinted with short implants only. After over an year of follow-up period, 139 implants(96.5%) out of 144 implants showed marginal bone loss of less than 1mm. 3 out of 173 implants failed showing 98.27% survival rate. Conclusions: The use of short Straumann implants(${\le}8mm$) can be a simple and reliable treatment method in minimal residual bone height.

Keywords

References

  1. Strietzel FP, Reichart PA: Oral rehabilitation using Camlog screw-cylinder implants with a particle-blasted and acid-etched microstructured surface. Results from a prospective study with special consideration of short implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 18 : 591, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01375.x
  2. Nedir R, Bischof M, Briaux JM et al: A 7-year life table analysis from a prospective study on ITI implants with special emphasis on the use of short implants. Results from a private practice. Clin Oral Implants Res 15: 150, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00978.x
  3. Griffin TJ, Cheung WS: The use of short, wide implants in posterior areas with reduced bone height: a retrospective investigation. J Prosthet Dent 92: 139, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.010
  4. Quirynen M, Naert I, van SD: Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 3: 104, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  5. Saadoun AP, LeGall ML: Clinical results and guidelines on Steri-Oss endosseous implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 12: 486, 1992
  6. Henry PJ, Tolman DE, Bolender C: The applicability of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: three-year results of a prospective multicenter study. Quintessence Int 24: 123, 1993
  7. Lazzara R, Siddiqui AA, Binon P et al: Retrospective multicenter analysis of 3i endosseous dental implants placed over a five-year period. Clin Oral Implants Res 7: 73, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070109.x
  8. Bahat O: Branemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15: 646, 2000
  9. van Steenberghe D, De Mars G, Quirynen M et al: A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screwshaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 11: 202, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x
  10. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K: Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 81 : 537, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  11. Saadoun AP, Le Gall MG: An 8-year compilation of clinical results obtained with Steri-Oss endosseous implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 17: 669, 1996
  12. Gunne J, Astrand P, Lindh T et al: Tooth-implant and implant supported fixed partial dentures: a 10-year report. Int J Prosthodont 12: 216, 1999
  13. Testori T, Wiseman L, Woolfe S et al: A prospective multicenter clinical study of the Osseotite implant: four-year interim report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16: 193, 2001
  14. Deporter D, Todescan R, Caudry S: Simplifying management of the posterior maxilla using short, porous-surfaced dental implants and simultaneous indirect sinus elevation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20: 476, 2000
  15. Testori T, Del Fabbro M, Feldman S et al: A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2-months loaded Osseotite implants placed in the posterior jaws: 3-year follow-up results. Clin Oral Implants Res 13: 154, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130205.x
  16. Friberg B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U et al: Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Branemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2: 184, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00116.x
  17. Tawil G, Younan R: Clinical evaluation of short, machined-surface implants followed for 12 to 92 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18: 894, 2003
  18. Teixeira ER, Wadamoto M, Akagawa Y et al: Clinical application of short hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants to the posterior mandible: a five-year survival study. J Prosthet Dent 78: 166, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70121-5
  19. Givol N, Taicher S, Halamish-Shani T et al: Risk management aspects of implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17: 258, 2002
  20. ten Bruggenkate CM, Asikainen P, Foitzik C et al: Short (6-mm) nonsubmerged dental implants: results of a Multicenter clinical trial of 1 to 7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13: 791, 1998
  21. Wedgwood D, Jennings KJ, Critchlow HA et al: Experience with ITI osseointegrated implants at five centres in the UK. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 30: 377, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-4356(92)90204-V
  22. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP et al: Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8: 161, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
  23. Brocard D, Barthet P, Baysse E et al: A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15 : 691, 2000
  24. Mal'o P, de Arau jo Nobre M, Rangert B: Short implants placed one-stage in maxillae and mandibles: a retrospective clinical study with 1 to 9 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 9: 15, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00027.x
  25. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U: Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Br°anemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6: 142, 1991
  26. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM et al: The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 13 : 144, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  27. Roccuzzo M, Wilson T: A prospective study evaluating a protocol for 6 weeks’loading of SLA implants in the posterior maxilla: one year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:502, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130509.x
  28. Salvi GE, Gallini G, Lang NP : Early loading (2 or 6 weeks) of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) ITI implants in the posterior mandible. A 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 15: 142, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01014.x
  29. Misch CE : Contemporary Implant dentistry, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mosby, 1998, p.91
  30. Lum LB: A biomechanical rationale for the use of short implants. J Oral Implantol 17: 126, 1991
  31. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK et al: Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 12: 559, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120603.x
  32. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS et al: Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 82: 232, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200316