Dental implant uygulamalarının retrospektif değerlendirilmesi: kesitsel bir çalışma

Year 2024, Volume: 25 Issue: 4, 96 - 101, 30.12.2024

Hazem Alhelou , Nuran Yanıkoğlu , Zeynep Çintosun

https://doi.org/10.70509/dicledentj.1554712

Abstract

Amaç: Dental implant uygulamaları, diş eksikliklerinin tedavisinde etkin ve yaygın olarak kullanılan yöntemdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2020-2023 yılları arasında ameliyat edilen hastaların demografik ve klinik durumları ile yerleştirilen implantların özelliklerini geriye dönük olarak incelemek ve tanımlayıcı istatistikler kullanarak değerlendirmektir. İmplant tedavisi gören hastaların ve tercih edilen kliniklerini ve implant sistemlerini retrospektif olarak incelemektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, İmplant tedavileri 2020 ile 2023 yılları arasında Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Periondotoloji anabilim dalı ve Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi anabilim dalında gerçekleştirilen, yaşları 17-80 arasında değişen toplam 1586 hastaya uygulanan 6990 implant değerlendirildi. Elde edilen demografik veriler yaş, cinsiyet, dişsizlik durumları, implant uygulanan bölgeler, tedavi sonrası restorasyon tipi ve yerleştirilen implant lokasyonları, tedavi sonrası restorasyon türü ve kullanılan implantların marka ve modeli gibi bir dizi özelliği incelemek için tanımlayıcı istatistiksel teknikler ile incelendi.
Bulgular: Hastaların %52,1’i (n=827) kadın, %47,9’u (n=759) ise erkekti. En yüksek hasta sayısı (n=480) 40-49 yaş grubundaydı. En sık implant uygulanan dişin mandibular 1.molar diş ve en sık uygulanan alanın mandibular molar bölge olduğu görüldü. Hastalara uygulanan implant sayısının %70,8’i periodontoloji kliniğinde yapıldığı tespit edildi. Yapılan protetik restorasyon tipine göre değerlendirildiğinde en yüksek hasta oranı %49,4 (n=1366) ile dişli sonlanan sabit kısmi dişsizlik durumları olduğu tespit edildi. En düşük hasta sayısı %5,9 (n=162) ile tam dişsizlik ve overdenture restorasyon durumu oldu.
Sonuç: Bu çalışmada; dental implant uygulamalarının klinik ve demografik yönleri değerlendirilmiş ve bulguları yorumlamak için tanımlayıcı istatistiksel analiz teknikleri kullanılmıştır. İmplantların klinik uygulamalarına ve protetik rehabilitasyonuna ait özelliklerinin retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi tedavi planlama süreçlerinde yol göstermesi açısından oldukça kıymetlidir.

Keywords

Dişsizlik, dental implant, implant destekli protez, retrospektif çalışma

Retrospective assessment of dental implant applications: cross-sectional study

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the demographic and clinical conditions of the patients operated between 2020 and 2023 and the characteristics of the implants placed and to evaluate them using descriptive statistics.
Methods: In this study, 6990 implants were evaluated in a total of 1586 patients aged 17-80 years, whose implant treatments were performed between 2020 and 2023 in Atatürk University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periondotology and Department of Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery. The demographic data obtained were analyzed by descriptive statistical techniques to examine a series of characteristics such as age, gender, edentulous status, implanted sites, type of post-treatment restoration and implant locations, type of post-treatment restoration and the brand and model of implants used.
Results: 52.1% (n=827) of the patients were female and 47.9% (n=759) were male. The highest number of patients (n=480) was in the 40-49 age group. The most commonly implanted tooth was the mandibular 1st molar, and the most commonly implanted area was the mandibular molar region. It was determined that 70.8% of the implants were performed in the periodontology clinic. When evaluated according to the type of prosthetic restoration, the highest proportion of patients was 49.4% (n=1366) with fixed partial edentulism terminated with teeth. The lowest number of patients was complete edentulism and overdenture restoration with 5.9% (n=162).
Conclusion: In this study; demographic and clinical characteristics of dental implant applications and the results were explained with descriptive statistical analysis methods. Retrospective evaluation of the features of clinical applications and prosthetic rehabilitation of implants is very valuable in terms of guiding treatment planning processes.

Keywords

Eduntulism, dental implant, implant supported prosthesis, retrospective study

References

• Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3(2):81-100. doi:10.3109/02844316909036699
• Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1-132.
• Brånemark PI, Adell R, Albrektsson T, Lekholm U, Lundkvist S, Rockler B. Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness. Biomaterials. 1983;4(1):25-28. doi:10.1016/0142-9612(83)90065-0
• Allen PF, McMillan AS. A longitudinal study of quality of life outcomes in older adults requesting implant prostheses and complete removable dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(2): 173-179. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140206.x
• Emami E, Heydecke G, Rompré PH, de Grandmont P, Feine JS. Impact of implant support for mandibular dentures on satisfaction, oral and general health-related quality of life: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(6):533-544. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01693.x
• Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31(3):161-168. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00029.x
• Sonoyama W, Kuboki T, Okamoto S, et al. Quality of life assessment in patients with implant-supported and resin-bonded fixed prosthesis for bounded edentulous spaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(4):359-364. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002. 130403.x
• Müller F, Wahl G, Fuhr K. Age-related satisfaction with complete dentures, desire for improvement and attitudes to implant treatment. Gerodontology. 1994;11(1):7-12. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 2358.1994.tb00096.x
• Levin L, Sadet P, Grossmann Y. A retrospective evaluation of 1,387 single-tooth implants: a 6-year follow-up. J Periodontol. 2006;77(12):2080-2083. doi:10.1902/jop.2006.060220
• Eckert SE, Wollan PC. Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79(4):415-421. doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70155-6
• 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. 1996;7(1):73-83. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070109.x
• Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(5):639-645.
• Mattheos N, Ucer C, Van de Velde T, Nattestad A. Assessment of knowledge and competencies related to implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate university education. Eur J Dent Educ Off J Assoc Dent Educ Eur. 2009;13(Suppl 1):56-65. doi:10. 1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00546.x
• Bural C, Bilhan H, Çilingir A, Geçkili O. Assessment of demographic and clinical data related to dental implants in a group of Turkish patients treated at a university clinic. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013;5(3):351-358. doi:10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.351
• Fischer K, Stenberg T. Three-year data from a randomizd, controlled study of early loading of single-stage dental implants supporting maxillary full-arch prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):245-252.
• Juodzbalys G, Raustia AM, Kubilius R. A 5-year follow-up study on one-stage implants inserted concomitantly with localized alveolar ridge augmentation. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(10):781-789. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01679.x
• Luongo G, Di Raimondo R, Filippini P, Gualini F, Paoleschi C. Early loading of sandblasted, acid-etched implants in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year follow-up report from a multicenter 3-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(1):84-91.
• Fugazzotto PA, Gulbransen HJ, Wheeler SL, Lindsay JA. The use of IMZ osseointegrated implants in partially and completely edentulous patients: success and failure rates of 2,023 implant cylinders up to 60+ months in function. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(6):617-621.
• Machtei EE, Mahler D, Oettinger-Barak O, Zuabi O, Horwitz J. Dental implants placed in previously failed sites: survival rate and factors affecting the outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(3): 259-264. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01466.x
• Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Hicklin S, Brägger U. Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):356-364. doi:10.1111/cid. 12066
• Sarı M, Tümer MK. Retrospective Assessment of Dental Implant Applications: Cross-Sectional Study. Turk Klin J Dent Sci. 2022; 28(2):245-251. doi:10.5336/dentalsci.2021-83695
• Brennan M, Houston F, O’Sullivan M, O’Connell B. Demographics of implant placement and complications of a patient subgroup in a dental hospital population. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2010;56(2):85-92.
• Mundt T, Mack F, Schwahn C, Biffar R. Private practice results of screw-type tapered implants: survival and evaluation of risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(4):607-614.
• Urvasizoğlu GG, Saruhan N, Ataol M. Evaluation of demographic and clinical characteristics of dental implant applications. J Atatürk Uni Fac Dent. 2016;26(3):394-398. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.290237
• Polat ME, Saruhan N, Gojayeva G. Demographic evaluation of patients with dental implants. J Biotechnol Strateg Health Res. 2019;3(2):85-90. doi:10.34084/bshr.580426
• Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(6):1109-1116.
• Eltas A, Dündar DS, Uzun İH, Malkoç MA. Evaluation of dental implant success and patient profile: a retrospective study. J Atatürk Uni Fac Dent. 2013;23(1):1-8.
• Urvasizoğlu G, Türen T. Prevalence and treatment of intraoperative and early complications encountered in dental implant procedures: a retrospective clinical study. J Atatürk Uni Fac Dent. 2019;29(2):259-267. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.498763
• Adalı E, Yüce MÖ, Günbay T, Çıplak G. Retrospective evaluation of success rates of different dental implants. J Atatürk Uni Fac Dent. 2018;28(2):174-181. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.418844
• Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002; 28(2):74-81. doi:10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0074:RFADIS>2.3.CO;2
• Akin C, Mutlu ŞN, Güntekin N. The relationship between increasing age and severity of tooth loss in adult patients. Necmettin Erbakan Uni J Dent. 2020;2(2):64-68.