The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mechanical and biological complication rates of the modified lateral-screw-retained implant prosthesis in the posterior region: an alternative to the conventional Implant prosthetic system

  • Lee, Jae-Hong (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Bin (Department of Periodontology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Man-Yong (Department of Prosthodontics, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Yoon, Joon-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Taek (Department of Periodontology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital)
  • Received : 2015.11.08
  • Accepted : 2016.01.12
  • Published : 2016.04.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The modified lateral-screw-retained implant prosthesis (LSP) is designed to combine the advantages of screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. This retrospective study evaluated the mechanical and biological complication rates of implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) inserted with the modified LSP in the posterior region, and determined how these complication rates are affected by clinical factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Mechanical complications (i.e., lateral screw loosening [LSL], abutment screw loosening, lateral screw fracture, and ceramic fracture) and biological complications (i.e., peri-implant mucositis [PM] and peri-implantitis) were identified from the patients' treatment records, clinical photographs, periapical radiographs, panoramic radiographs, and clinical indices. The correlations between complication rates and the following clinical factors were determined: gender, age, position in the jaw, placement location, functional duration, clinical crown-to-implant length ratio, crown height space, and the use of a submerged or nonsubmerged placement procedure. RESULTS. Mechanical and biological complications were present in 25 of 73 ISSCs with the modified LSP. LSL (n=11) and PM (n=11) were the most common complications. The incidence of mechanical complications was significantly related to gender (P=.018). The other clinical factors were not significantly associated with mechanical and biological complication rates. CONCLUSION. Within the limitations of this study, the incidence of mechanical and biological complications in the posterior region was similar for both modified LSP and conventional implant prosthetic systems. In addition, the modified LSP is amenable to maintenance care, which facilitates the prevention and treatment of mechanical and biological complications.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital

References

  1. Kotsovilis S, Fourmousis I, Karoussis IK, Bamia C. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of implant length on the survival of rough-surface dental implants. J Periodontol 2009;80:1700-18. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090107
  2. Moraschini V, Velloso G, Luz D, Barboza EP. Implant survival rates, marginal bone level changes, and complications in full-mouth rehabilitation with flapless computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:892-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.02.013
  3. Wohrle PS. Nobel Perfect esthetic scalloped implant: rationale for a new design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5: 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00017.x
  4. Choquet V, Hermans M, Adriaenssens P, Daelemans P, Tarnow DP, Malevez C. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the papilla level adjacent to single-tooth dental implants. A retrospective study in the maxillary anterior region. J Periodontol 2001;72:1364-71. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1364
  5. Funato A, Salama MA, Ishikawa T, Garber DA, Salama H. Timing, positioning, and sequential staging in esthetic implant therapy: a four-dimensional perspective. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007;27:313-23.
  6. Weigl P. New prosthetic restorative features of Ankylos implant system. J Oral Implantol 2004;30:178-88. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<178:NPRFOT>2.0.CO;2
  7. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:119-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
  8. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23: 2-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
  9. Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:97-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
  10. Hermanides L. Criteria to manage the technical and biologic success of an implant abutment. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2014;35:463-8.
  11. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:667-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01120.x
  12. Linkevicius T, Vladimirovas E, Grybauskas S, Puisys A, Rutkunas V. Veneer fracture in implant-supported metal-ceramic restorations. Part I: Overall success rate and impact of occlusal guidance. Stomatologija 2008;10:133-9.
  13. Karl M, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM. The effect of load cycling on metal ceramic screw-retained implant restorations with unrestored and restored screw access holes. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60004-9
  14. Mombelli A, Lang NP. The diagnosis and treatment of periimplantitis. Periodontol 2000 1998;17:63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00124.x
  15. Klinge B, Meyle J. Working Group 2. Peri-implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:108-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02555.x
  16. Misch CE, Goodacre CJ, Finley JM, Misch CM, Marinbach M, Dabrowsky T, English CE, Kois JC, Cronin RJ Jr. Consensus conference panel report: crown-height space guidelines for implant dentistry-part 1. Implant Dent 2005; 14:312-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000188375.76066.23
  17. Blanes RJ, Bernard JP, Blanes ZM, Belser UC. A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. I: Clinical and radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:699-706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01306.x
  18. Kreissl ME, Gerds T, Muche R, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Technical complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18: 720-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01414.x
  19. Theoharidou A, Petridis HP, Tzannas K, Garefis P. Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:681-90.
  20. Cha HS, Kim YS, Jeon JH, Lee JH. Cumulative survival rate and complication rates of single-tooth implant; focused on the coronal fracture of fixture in the internal connection implant. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:595-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12065
  21. Morneburg TR, Proschel PA. In vivo forces on implants influenced by occlusal scheme and food consistency. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:481-6.
  22. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:772-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01912.x
  23. Bidra AS. Nonsurgical management of inflammatory periimplant disease caused by food impaction: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.017
  24. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17:e45-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12122
  25. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1388-92. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090115
  26. Lindhe J, Meyle J. Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:282-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x
  27. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Salvi GE, Botticelli D, Mombelli A, Faddy M, Lang NP; Implant Complication Research Group. Antiinfective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:237-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
  28. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Salvi GE, Mombelli A, Faddy M, Lang NP. Implant Complication Research Group. Anti-infective surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. A 12-month prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:205-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02276.x
  29. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:568-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00230.x
  30. Biancu S, Ericsson I, Lindhe J. Periodontal ligament tissue reactions to trauma and gingival inflammation. An experimental study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:772-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb00260.x
  31. Miyaura K, Matsuka Y, Morita M, Yamashita A, Watanabe T. Comparison of biting forces in different age and sex groups: a study of biting efficiency with mobile and non-mobile teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:223-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00364.x
  32. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:18-22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-182X.2003.01179.x
  33. Rangert BR, Sullivan RM, Jemt TM. Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:360-70.
  34. Nissan J, Ghelfan O, Gross O, Priel I, Gross M, Chaushu G. The effect of crown/implant ratio and crown height space on stress distribution in unsplinted implant supporting restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:1934-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.036
  35. Esposito M, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K. Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Branemark implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040306.x
  36. Tarnow D, Elian N, Fletcher P, Froum S, Magner A, Cho SC, Salama M, Salama H, Garber DA. Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol 2003;74:1785-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.12.1785
  37. Lee JH, Lee JB, Park JI, Choi SH, Kim YT. Mechanical complication rates and optimal horizontal distance of the most distally positioned implant-supported single crowns in the posterior region: a study with a mean follow-up of 3 years. J Prosthodont 2015;24:517-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12306
  38. Cicciu M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cementedretained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol 2008;57:167-79.
  39. Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:817-25.
  40. Dierens M, De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Nilner K, Cosyn J, Vandeweghe S. Prosthetic Survival and Complication Rate of Single Implant Treatment in the Periodontally Healthy Patient after 16 to 22 Years of Follow-Up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014 Sep 5.

Cited by

  1. A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial vol.19, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12541
  2. Influence of Abutment Surface Treatments on Screw Loosening of Morse Taper Implants vol.26, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000622
  3. Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up vol.13, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191717
  4. The prosthetic abutment height can affect marginal bone loss around dental implants vol.20, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12648
  5. The diagnosis of peri-implantitis: A systematic review on the predictive value of bleeding on probing vol.29, pp.09057161, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13127
  6. Incidence and pattern of implant fractures: A long-term follow-up multicenter study vol.20, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12621
  7. Efficacy of deep convolutional neural network algorithm for the identification and classification of dental implant systems, using panoramic and periapical radiographs : A pilot study vol.99, pp.26, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000020787
  8. Complication rates for various retention types in anterior implant-supported prostheses: A retrospective clinical study vol.125, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.018
  9. Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial vol.47, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-19-00150