Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제49권1호
  • /
  • Pages.13-20
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effectiveness of ultra-wide implants in the mandibular and maxillary posterior areas: a 5-year retrospective clinical study

  • So-Yeon Kim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Hyeong-Gi Kim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Pil-Young Yun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Young-Kyun Kim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2022.12.28
  • 심사 : 2023.02.17
  • 발행 : 2023.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: Ultra-wide implants may be used as a replacement if existing implants fail. This study was conducted to evaluate the factors influencing the prognosis and failure of ultra-wide implants. Patients and Methods: This study evaluated whether sex, age, site, diameter, length, additional surgery, implant stability (primary and secondary), and reason for ultra-wide implant placement affect the 5-year survival and success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of ultra-wide implants. Seventy-eight ultra-wide implants that were placed in 71 patients (39 males and 32 females) from 2008 to 2010 were studied. One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to evaluate the statistical significance of MBL according to the patient's sex, implant site, and diameter. Independent sample t-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of MBL analysis which was used to determine the significance of the 5-year success and survival rates related to the variables. One-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the statistical significance of sex, implantation site, diameter, and MBL. Independent sample t-tests were used to evaluate the correlation between implantability and MBL for implantation reasons, while additional surgery, length, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate 5-year survival and success rates. Results: The mean age of patients was 54.2 years with a survival rate of 92.3% and a success rate of 83.3% over a mean 97.8-month period of observation. MBL averaged 0.2 mm after one year of prosthetic function loading and 0.54 mm at the time of final observation. Success rates correlated with primary stability (P=0.045), survival rates correlated with secondary stability (P=0.036), and MBL did not correlate with any variables. Conclusion: Ultra-wide implants can be used to achieve secure initial fixation in the maxillary and mandibular molar regions with poor bone quality or for alternative purposes in cases of previous implant failure.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Al-Johany SS, Al Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental implant length and diameter: a proposed classification scheme. J Prosthodont 2017;26:252-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12517
  2. Hattingh A, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. A retrospective study on ultra-wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:879-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12759
  3. Lee CT, Chen YW, Starr JR, Chuang SK. Survival analysis of wide dental implant: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1251-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12730
  4. Saluja B, Alam M, Ravindranath T, Mubeen A, Adya N, Bhardwaj J, et al. Effect of length and diameter on stress distribution pattern of INDIDENT dental implants by finite element analysis. J Dent Implants 2012;2:19-25. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-6781.96561
  5. Small PN, Tarnow DP. Gingival recession around implants: a 1-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:527-32.
  6. Will MJ, Drago C. Survival rate of ultrawide diameter implants placed into molar postextraction sockets and in function for up to 144 months. J Prosthodont 2023;32:116-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13534
  7. Wadhwa P, Kim SK, Kim HJ, Lim HK, Jia Q, Jiang HB, et al. A six-year prospective comparative study of wide and standard diameter implants in the maxillary and mandibular posterior area. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;57:1009. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57101009
  8. Ketabi M, Deporter D, Atenafu EG. A systematic review of outcomes following immediate molar implant placement based on recently published studies. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:1084-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12390
  9. Hattingh AC, De Bruyn H, Ackermann A, Vandeweghe S. Immediate placement of ultrawide-diameter implants in molar sockets: description of a recommended technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018;38:17-23. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3433
  10. Ku JK, Yi YJ, Yun PY, Kim YK. Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;38:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0075-z
  11. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival of dental implants placed in sites of previously failed implants.Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1348-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12992
  12. Agari K, Le B. Successive reimplantation of dental implants into sites of previous failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;78:375-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.10.001
  13. Ting M, Palermo M, Donatelli DP, Gaughan JP, Suzuki JB, Jefferies SR. A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics on the survival of the wide-diameter implant. Int J Implant Dent 2015;1:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-015-0030-2
  14. Termeie D, Klokkevold PR, Caputo AA. Effect of implant diameter and ridge dimension on stress distribution in mandibular first molar sites-a photoelastic study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:e165-73. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-14-00008
  15. Bazrafshan N, Darby I. Retrospective success and survival rates of dental implants placed with simultaneous bone augmentation in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:768-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12185
  16. Monje A, Ravida A, Wang HL, Helms JA, Brunski JB. Relationship between primary/mechanical and secondary/biological implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:s7-23. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.19suppl.g1
  17. Cobo-Vazquez C, Reininger D, Molinero-Mourelle P, GonzalezSerrano J, Guisado-Moya B, Lopez-Quiles J. Effect of the lack of primary stability in the survival of dental implants. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10:e14-9. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54441
  18. Huwiler MA, Pjetursson BE, Bosshardt DD, Salvi GE, Lang NP. Resonance frequency analysis in relation to jawbone characteristics and during early healing of implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:275-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01336.x
  19. Rodrigo D, Aracil L, Martin C, Sanz M. Diagnosis of implant stability and its impact on implant survival: a prospective case series study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:255-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01820.x
  20. Ivanova V, Chenchev I, Zlatev S, Mijiritsky E. Correlation between primary, secondary stability, bone density, percentage of vital bone formation and implant size. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:6994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136994
  21. Deger M, Surmelioglu O, Kuleci S, Izol V, Akdogan N, Onan E, et al. Risk factors associated with nocturia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75:e13724. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13724
  22. Ibanez C, Catena A, Galindo-Moreno P, Noguerol B, MaganFernandez A, Mesa F. Relationship between long-term marginal bone loss and bone quality, implant width, and surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:398-405. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4245
  23. Park WB, Han JY, Kang KL. Long-term comparison of survival and marginal bone of implants with and without sinus augmentation in maxillary molars within the same patients: a 5.8- to 22-year retrospective study. J Clin Med 2021;10:1360. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071360
  24. Zumstein T, Schutz S, Sahlin H, Sennerby L. Factors influencing marginal bone loss at a hydrophilic implant design placed with or without GBR procedures: a 5-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:817-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12826