Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지

3-Year Survival Analysis of RBM and Acid-Etched Surface Implants

RBM 표면 임플란트와 산부식 표면 임플란트의 3년 생존율에 대한 비교 연구

  • Yoon, Dae-Woong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Moon-Seob (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jang, Han-Seung (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jin, Soo-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Mah, Deuk-Hyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jeong, Gyeong-Dal (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Park, Hyun-Chun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hak-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 윤대웅 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 김문섭 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 장한성 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 진수영 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 마득현 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 정경달 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 박현춘 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김학균 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학 교실)
  • Received : 2011.10.22
  • Accepted : 2011.12.25
  • Published : 2011.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare survival rates of resorbable blast media(RBM) surface and acid-etched surface implants being usually used in clinics. RBM surface implants (USII, Osstem, Busan, Korea) or acid-etched surface implants ($Osseotite^{(R)}$, Biomet $3i^{[TM]}$, FL, USA) were placed in edentulous area of 140 patients between January of 2005 and March of 2007. The number of implants was 304, and 152 out of them were RBM surface implants while another 152 were acid-etched surface implants. According to the evaluation items, the survey was performed before and after the implants installations. The 3-year survival rates of both kind of implants were calculated. 1. Total of 152 RBM surface implants were placed. Among them, one implant was failed, which was implanted in the posterior mandible with D2 bone quality. The failure was resulted from fracture of the fixture. Others showed good results and survival rate of RBM surface implant was 99.34%. 2. Total of 152 acid-etched surface implants were placed. Seven implants of them were failed, thus, survival rate was 95.39%. The causes of the failures were considered as infection, overheat and the lack of initial stability. In this research, both implants showed good 3-year survival rate, although RMB surface implant represented a better result.

이 연구의 목적은 임상적으로 사용되는 RBM과 산부식 임플란트의 3년 생존율을 비교, 분석하기 위한 것이다. 총 152개의 RBM 임플란트를 식립하였고, 이 중 1개의 임플란트에서 실패가 발생하였는데, 원인은 식립체의 파절이었다. 또한 총 152개의 산부식 표면 임플란트를 식립하였는데, 이 중 7개의 임플란트에서 실패를 하였으며, 원인으로는 과열, 감염, 초기고정 불량 등이었다. RBM 임플란트의 생존율은 99.34%, 산부식 임플란트의 생존율은 95.39%로 두 가지 임플란트 모두 양호한 생존율을 보였으나, RBM 임플란트에서 다소 높은 생존율을 나타내었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, PaPaioannou W et al. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: Short-term observations. Int J oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11: 169-178.
  2. Alvreksson T, Qarb G, Worthington P et al : 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.
  3. Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY et al : Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33-42.
  4. Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P et al. Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:423-432. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120501.x
  5. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M et al. Bone response to machines and resorbable blast material titanium implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2
  6. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rao W et al. Bone-implant co ntact and bone quality: Evaluation of expected and actual bone contact on machined and osseotite implant surface. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002;22:533-545.
  7. Choi JY, Koh SW, Ryu HW. Clinical study on survival rate of osseointegrated implants. J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;31: 306-313.
  8. Jeon HR, Kim MR, Lee DH et al. Four-year survival rate of RBM surface internal connection non- submerged implants and the change of the peri-implant crestal bone. J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;31:237-242.
  9. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark, PI, Zarb, GA, Albrektsson, T(eds). Tissue-integrated prostheses. Chicago: Quintessance publishing Co; 1985:199-209.
  10. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P et al. 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.
  11. Buchs AU, Hahn J, Vassos DM. Interim clinical study report :a threaded, hydroxyapatite-coated implant- five-year post-restoration safety and efficacy. J Oral implantol 1995;21:266-274.
  12. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson, Lausmaa J. Torque and histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw- shaped titanium implants and 75um sized particles of Al2O3. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;30: 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199602)30:2<251::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-P
  13. Buser D, Scjenk RK, Steinemann S et al. Influence of surface characteristics in bone integration titanium implants. A stomor phometic study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  14. Maurizio P, Antonio S, Michele P et al. Bone reponse to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: An experimental study in rabbits. Oral implantol 2002;28:2-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2
  15. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M et al. Bone response to machines and resorbable blast material titanium implants: An experimental stydy in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2
  16. Sanz A, Oyarzum A, Farias D et al. Experimental study of bone response to a new surface treatment of endosseous titanium implants. Implant Dent 2001;10: 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200104000-00009
  17. Sullivan DY, Sherwood RL, Mai TN. Preliminary results of a multicenter study evaluating a chemically enhanced surface for machined commercially pure titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:379-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70045-3
  18. Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M et al. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:442-447. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080601.x
  19. Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R et al. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1567-1575. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291213
  20. Nishimura K, Itoh T, Takaki K et al. Periodontal parameters of osseointegrated dental implants. A 4-year controlled follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:272-278. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080404.x
  21. 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 2001;16:193-200.