Evaluation of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Dental Implant Applications

Abstract

Aim:Dental implant application is a successful treatment for single or multiple tooth missing. The aim of this study was to investigate the demographic and clinical conditions of the patients who underwent implant surgery retrospectively. Materials and Methods:In this retrospective study, a total of 1651 dental implants (514 patients aged between 18-79 years and administered to Inönü University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periondotology between March 2016 and December 2018) were evaluated. Patient’s age, gender, systemic health, condition of edentulous, time of loading, additional surgical procedures, areas where implant was applied, type of retoration after treatment and various characteristics of implants such as size, brand and type were examined retrospectively. Results:55.3% of patients (n=284) were female and 44.7%(n=230) were male. The highest number of patients constituted the 40-49 age group with 29.8%(n=153). The most frequently implanted tooth was mandibular 1.molar. 15,16,25,35,36,37,46,47 teeth were preferred in the 40-49 age group (p<0.05). The number of implants performed on teeth 16 and 43 in females was higher than males(p<0.05). It was found that the most implanted area was the posterior mandible. Augmentation was performed in 18% of implant applications and it was found that 9-12mm long implants were used most frequently. Bridge restoration was the most common implant prosthesis and most of the restorations were performed according to the late loading protocol. Conclusion:Implant supported prosthesis is a successful, effective and predictable treatment for the replacement of missing teeth. Retrospective evaluation of the properties of implants for clinical applications is very valuable in guiding dentists.

Keywords

• dental implant
• edentulous
• implant-supported dental prosthesis
• success

Project Number

yok

Dental İmplant Uygulamalarının Demografik ve Klinik Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Dental implant uygulamaları, çoklu veya tek diş kayıplarında sık olarak uygulanmakta olan yüksek başarı oranlarına sahip bir tedavi yöntemidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kliniğimizde dental implant cerrahisi uygulanan hastaların demografik ve klinik durumlarını ve yerleştirilen implantların özelliklerini retrospektif olarak incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada 2016 Mart ayı ile 2018 Aralık ayı tarihleri arasında İnönü Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Periondotoloji anabilim dalına implant tedavisi için başvuran, yaşları 18-79 arasında değişen toplam 514 hastaya uygulanan 1651 implant değerlendirildi. Hastaların yaş, cinsiyet, sistemik durumu, dişsizlik durumu, yükleme zamanı, ek cerrahi işlemler, implant uygulanan bölgeler, tedavi sonrası restorasyon tipi ve yerleştirilen implantların boyut, marka ve tip gibi çeşitli özellikleri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Bulgular: Hastaların, %55,3’ü (n=284) kadın, %44,7’si (n=230) ise erkekti. En yüksek hasta sayısını, %29,8 (n=153) ile 40-49 yaş grubu oluşturmuştur. En sık implant uygulanan diş bölgesinin mandibular 1.molar diş olduğu bulunmuştur. 40-49 yaş grubunda 15, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47 numaralı diş bölgelerine implant yapılması istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p<0,05). Kadınlarda sağ üst 1.molar ve sağ alt kanin dişlerine yapılan implant sayısının erkeklerden yüksek bulunmuştur (p<0,05). En fazla implant uygulanan bölgenin posterior mandibula olduğu saptanmıştır. İmplant uygulamalarının %18’inde augmentasyon yapılmış olup en sık 9-12 mm uzunluğunda implantların kullanıldığı saptanmıştır. İmplant üstü protez olarak en sık köprü uygulaması yapılmış ve restorasyonların çoğu geç yükleme protokolüne göre yapılmıştır. Sonuç: İmplant destekli protezler, kayıp dişlerin yerine konması amacıyla kullanılacak başarılı, etkili ve sonuçları tahmin edilebilir bir tedavi şeklidir. İmplantların klinik uygulamalarına ait özelliklerinin retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi hekimlere yol göstermesi açısından oldukça değerlidir.

Keywords

• başarı
• dental implant
• dişsizlik
• implant destekli protez

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

İstatistiksel analizler için Hande Emir’e (SWOT Statistics, Istanbul) teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Referans1. Buser D, Mericske‐stern R, Pierre Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, 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. 1997;8(3):161-72.
2. Referans2. 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):351-8.
3. Referans3. Brånemark P, Adell R, Albrektsson T, Lekholm U, Lundkvist S, Rockler B. Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness. Biomaterials. 1983;4(1):25-8.
4. Referans4. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry-E-Book: Arabic Bilingual Edition: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2007.
5. Referans5. Faggion Jr CM, Apaza K, Ariza-Fritas T, Málaga L, Giannakopoulos NN, Alarcón MAJPo. Methodological quality of consensus guidelines in implant dentistry. PloS one. 2017;12(1):e0170262.
6. Referans6. Barewal RM, Oates TW, Meredith N, Cochran DLJIJoO. Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(5):641-51.
7. Referans7. Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ, Rangert B. Immediate functional loading of Brånemark system implants in edentulous mandibles: clinical report of the results of developmental and simplified protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(2):250-7.
8. Referans8. Shalabi M, Gortemaker A, Hof MVt, Jansen J, Creugers N. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2006;85(6):496-500.

9. Referans9. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):441-51.
10. Referans10. Sollazzo V, Pezzetti F, Scarano A, Piattelli A, Bignozzi CA, Massari L, et al. Zirconium oxide coating improves implant osseointegration in vivo. Dent Mater. 2008;24(3):357-61.
11. Referans11. Blay A, Blay CC, Tunchel S, Gehrke SA, Shibli JA, Groth EB, et al. Effects of a Low-Intensity Laser on Dental Implant Osseointegration: Removal Torque and Resonance Frequency Analysis in Rabbits. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(4):316-20.
12. Referans12. Tarnow D, Cho S, Wallace S. The effect of inter‐implant distance on the height of inter‐implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000;71(4):546-9.
13. Referans13. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(5):620-5.
14. Referans14. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang H-L, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17(1):5-15.
15. Referans15. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Lindén U, Bergström C, 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):639-45.
16. Referans16. 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(7):772-7.
17. Referans17. 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):2080-3.
18. Referans18. Eckert SE, Wollan PC. Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79(4):415-21.
19. Referans19. Lazzara R, Siddiqui A, Binon P, Feldman S, Weiner R, Phillips R, 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.
20. Referans20. Eltas A, Dündar DS, Uzun İH, Malkoç MA. Dental implant başarısının ve hasta profilinin değerlendirilmesi: retrospektif bir çalışma. Atatürk üniv dis hek fak derg. 2013;23(1):1-8.
21. Referans21. Urvasizoglu G SN, Ataol M. Evaluation of demographic and clinical features of dental implant applications. Atatürk üniv dis hek fak derg . 2016;26(3):394-8.
22. Referans22. Vehemente VA, Chuang S-K, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(2):74-81.
23. Referans23. Yildirim G, Aktas C, Polat NT, Gul Aygun E. Demographic evaluation of implant locations among 1000 adult patients in Turkey. Avicenna J Dent Re. 2018;10(1):22-7.
24. Referans24. Hogenius S, Berggren U, Blomberg S, Jemt T, Öhman SC. Demographical, odontological, and psychological variables in individuals referred for osseointegrated dental implants. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1992;20(4):224-8.
25. Referans25. Kim J-S, Sohn J-Y, Park J-C, Jung U-W, Kim C-S, Lee J-H, et al. Cumulative survival rate of Astra Tech implants: a retrospective analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2011;41(2):86-91.
26. Referans26. Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber H-P, Buser Dl. 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):1109-16.
27. Referans27. Woo I, Le B. Maxillary sinus floor elevation: review of anatomy and two techniques. Implant Dent. 2004;13(1):28-32.
28. Referans28. Klinge B, Petersson A, Maly P. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1989;4(4):327-32