KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

İşıl Damla Şener Yamaner

doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.637076

KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı 10 mm’nin altında kemik yüksekliğine sahip bölgelerde yerleştirilen kısa implantların ortalama 19 aylık takip süresinde, implant klinik başarısının araştırılması ve marjinal kemik kaybının, implantın; lokasyonuna, kron/ implant oranına ve hastanın; cinsiyeti, yaşı ve sigara kullanımı gibi parametrelere göre değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada; yaşları 20-82 arasında değişen 64 hastaya toplamda 101 adet implant yerleştirildi. İmplantlar 10 hafta iyileşme sürecini takiben yüklendiler. Marjinal kemik kayıpları başlangıç ve ortalama 19 ay sonrasında ölçüldü. Hastaların implant çevre kemik doku kaybı; implant ve hastaya bağlı parametrelere göre değerlendirildi. Ayrıca klinik takip süresi sonundaki yaşam ömürleri hesaplandı.

Bulgular: Çalışmamızda 19 aylık takip süresinde implantlarda ki başarı oranı %98 dir. İmplantların takip süresi içerisindeki ortalama marjinal kemik kaybı 0,33 ± 0,19 mm olarak bulundu. Kısa implantlarda kron/implant oranının marjinal kemik kaybına etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu. Ayrıca hastanın yaşı ve sigara kullanımın da marjinal kemik kaybına etkisi istatiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu. Buna karşın hastanın cinsiyetinin marjinal kemik kaybına etkisi istatiksel olarak anlamlı tespit edilmedi.

Sonuç: Bu kısa dönem takip çalışması standart uzun dental implantların uygulanamadığı vakalarda kısa dental implantlantların kullanımının ortalama 19 aylık dönemde başarılı olduğunu tespit etmiştir. Ancak daha kesin verilere ulaşabilmek için uzun dönem takip çalışmaları gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: dental implant, panoramik radyografi, başarı.

THE SUCCESS RATES OF SHORT IMPLANTS IN A 19 MONTHS RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATİON

ABSTRACT

Aim: The aim of this study is the evaluation of the success rate of short implants in patients who have less than 10 mm alveolar bone in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible in average 19 months follow-up time. And evaluation of the marginal bone loss around implants according to patient related parameters as smoking, age, gender and implant related parameters as location and crown/implant ratio.

Materials and Methods: One hundred and one implants were placed in 64 patients and loaded with final restorations after 10 weeks of healing time. Marginal bone loss around implants was determined radiographically at initial and after a mean observation time average of 19 months. The effect of smoking habit, age, gender, implant location and crown/implant ratio on the marginal bone loss was evaluated. The survival rate of the implants was determined.

Results: The overall cumulative survival rate of short implants in 19 months was 98%. The mean marginal bone loss value for the short implants was 0,33 ± 0,19 mm. Marginal bone loss was affected by the crown/implant ratio, location, patients’ smoking habit and age but not the gender of the patient.

Conclusion: With short dental implants, successful clinical results could be achieved in patients who have less than 10 mm alveolar bone in posterior regions of maxilla and mandible up to 19 months of short follow-up time. Long term studies are needed for short dental implants.

Key words: dental implant, panoramic radiograph, success.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dental implant,panoramik radyografi

Kaynakça

1-Ellingsen JE, Thomsen P, Lyngstadaas SP. Advances in Dental Implant Materials and Tissue Regeneration. Periodontology 2000 2006; 41:136-56.
2-Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(2):35-51.
3- Dağ M, Karaçaylı Ü. Dental implantlarda Yapısal ve Yüzey Özellikleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2015;25(1): 119-27.
4-Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Esposito M. Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: a randomised controlled trial with 5-year after loading follow-up. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014; 7(4):359-69.
5-Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Piatelli M, Corvino V, Barausse C, Buti J, Soardi E, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year postloading results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013; 6(4):359-72.
6-Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C,Buti J, Corvino V. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2013;6(4):343-57.
7- Esposito M, Pellegrino G, Pistilli R, et al. Rehabilitation of posterior atrophic edentulous jaws: prostheses supported by 5 mm short implants or by longer implants in augmented bone? One-year results from a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2011;4:21–30.
8-Esposito M, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Sammartino G, Grandi G, Felice P. Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: one-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2015;8(3):257-68.

9-Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Bruno V, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M. Short implants as an alternative to crestal sinus lift: a 1-year multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2015;8(4):375-84.
10- Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Buti J, Leone M, Ferri V, Esposito M. Immediate loading of fixed cross-arch prostheses supported by flapless-placed supershort or long implants: 1-year results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2015;8:27–36.
11-Fan T, Li Y, Deng WW, Wu T, Zhang W. Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: a meta-analysis of RCTs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19: 207-15.
12-Palacios JAV, Garcia JJ, Caramês JMM, Quirynen M, da Silva Marques DN. Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Invest 2018; 22:69–80.
13. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Galucci GO. Success Criteria in Implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-8.
14. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J,Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival and failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 5-15.
15. Baqain ZH, Moqbel WY,Sawair FA. Early dental implant failure:risk factors.British J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:239-43.
16. Mısch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. Third edition. Mosby Elsevier 2008:421-621.
17. Eltaş A, Uzun İH, Dündar S, Arslan Malkoç M. Dental İmplant Başarısının ve Hasta Profilinin Değerlendirilmesi: Retrospektif Bir Çalışma. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013; 21(1): 1–8.
18. Mallampalli A, Guntupalli KK. Smoking and systemic disease. Clin Occup Environ Med 2006; (5): 173-92.
19. Van der Velden U, Varoufaki A, Hutter JW, Xu L, Timmerman MF, Van Winkelhoff AJ, Loos BG. Effect of smoking and periodontal treatment on the subgingival microflora. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30: 603–10.
20-Pierrisnard L, Renouard F, Renault P, Barquinis M. Influence of implant length and bicortical anchorage on implant stress distribution. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(4):254–62.
21-Blanes RJ. To what extent does the crown-implant ratio affect the survival and complications of implant-supported reconstructions? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 ;20 Suppl 4:67-72.
22- Engel E, Gomez-Roman G, Axmann-Kremar D. Effect of occlusal wear on bone loss and Periotest value of dental implants. Int J Prosthodontics 2001;14: 444-50.
23-Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Soardi E, Pistilli R, Piattelli M, Corvino V, Felice P. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm-long, 4 mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Preliminary results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012; 5: 19–33.
24. Buser D, von Arx T, ten Bruggenkate C, et al. Basic surgical principles with ITI implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11(suppl 1): 59–68.
25. Galindo-Moreno P, Leon-Cano A, Monje A, et al. Abutment height influences the effect of platform switching on periimplant marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 167–73.
26-Villa G, Stavola L, Fincato A, Guida A, Magliano A, Merli M, Polizzi G, Karl M. Short, parallel-walled, conical-connection implants for a broad range of indications in the maxilla and mandible: Retrospective multicenter study with up to 33 months of follow-up. Quintessence Int 2018;49(8):645-51.
27. Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, et al. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1323-31.
28. Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1085-97.
29. Jain N, Gulati M, Garg M, Pathak C. Short implants: new horizon in implant dentistry. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:14–17.
30- Esfahrood ZR, Ahmadi L, Karami E, Asqhari S. Short dental implants in the posterior maxilla: a review of the literature. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;43:70–76.
31-Thoma DS, Cha JK, Jung UW. Treatment concepts for the posterior maxilla and mandible: short implants versus long implants in augmented bone. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017;47:2–12.
32-Geminiani A, Tsigarida A, Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos PV, Feng C, Ercoli C. A meta-analysis of complications during sinus augmentation procedure. Quintessence Int 2017;48:231–240.
33-Tutak M, Smektala T, Schneider K, Golebiewska E, Sporniak-Tutak K. Short dental implants in reduced alveolar bone height: a review of the literature. Med Sci Monit 2013;21(19):1037–42.
34-Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, Hurzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F ve ark. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(3):417–23.
35-Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L,Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38(7): 667–76.
36-Neldam CA, Pinholt EM. State of the art of short dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(4):622-32.
37-Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hüsler J, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 – EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Impl Res 2015;26:154- 69.
38-Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hämmerle CH. Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. J Clin Periodontol2015; 42(1):72–80.
39-. Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJA. Single crowns in the resorbed posterior maxilla supported by either 6-mm implants or by 11-mmimplants combined with sinus floor elevation surgery: A 1-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7(3):247–55.
40-Albrerktsson T, Zarb G, Worthington D, Eriksson R. The long term efficiency of currently used dental implants. A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1(1): 11-25.
41- Koszuta P, Grafka A, Koszuta A, Lopucki M, Szymanska J. Effects of selected factors on the osseointegration of dental implants Prz Menopauzalny 2015;14(3):184-87.
42. Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Aass AM. Prevalence of implant loss and the influence of associated factors. J Periodontol 2009;80: 1069–75.
43. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35:51-7.
44-Chambrone L, Preshaw PM, Ferreira JD, Rodrigues JA, Cassoni A, Shibli JA. Effects of tobacco smoking on the survival rate of dental implants placed in areas of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(4):408-16.
45-Bezerra Ferreira JD, Rodrigues JA, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Gehrke SA, Shibli JA. The effect of cigarette smoking on early osseointegration of dental implants: a prospective controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27(9):1123-28.
46. Koldsland OC, Scheie AA, Ass AM. Prevalence of implant loss and the influence of associated factors. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1069–75.
47. Jebreen SE, Khraisat A. Multicenter retrospective study of ITI implant supported posterior partial prosthesis in Jordan. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007;9:89–93.
48- Sotto-Maior BS, Senna PM, da Silva-Neto JP, de Arruda Nobilo MA, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress around single short-wide implants: a photoelastic stress analysis. J Prosthodont 2015;24(1):52-6.
49-Ramos Verri F, Santiago Junior JF, de Faria Almeida DA, de Oliveira GB, de Souza Batista VE, Marques Honorio H, Noritomi PY, Pellizzer EP. Biomechanical influence of crown-toimplant ratio on stress distribution over internal hexagon short implant: 3-D finite element analysis with statistical test. J Biomech 2015;48(1):138-45.
50-Wang TM, Wang JS, Chang CF, Lin LD. (2002) Effects of crown–implant height ratio on peri-implant bone stress. IADR Abstract, 80th IADR Meeting, San Diego.
51-Marcelo BT, Ana PM, Renata CS, Rodrigues Ricardo FR, Maria GCM. A three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Morse Taper Implants Surface. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57, 206-12.
52. Bidez MW, Misch CE. Force transfer in implant dentistry: basic concepts and principles. J Oral Implantol. 1992;18(3):264–74

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Diş Hekimliği

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

İşıl Damla Şener Yamaner Bu kişi benim
0000-0002-4790-6542

Yayımlanma Tarihi

15 Ocak 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

11 Haziran 2019

Kabul Tarihi

23 Ekim 2019

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2020 Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.637076

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA55FB77MM

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Şener Yamaner, İ. D. (2020). KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.637076

AMA

1.Şener Yamaner İD. KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2020;30(1):66-74. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.637076

Chicago

Şener Yamaner, İşıl Damla. 2020. “KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30 (1): 66-74. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.637076.

EndNote

Şener Yamaner İD (01 Ocak 2020) KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30 1 66–74.

IEEE

[1]İ. D. Şener Yamaner, “KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”, Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg, c. 30, sy 1, ss. 66–74, Oca. 2020, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.637076.

ISNAD

Şener Yamaner, İşıl Damla. “KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30/1 (01 Ocak 2020): 66-74. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.637076.

JAMA

1.Şener Yamaner İD. KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2020;30:66–74.

MLA

Şener Yamaner, İşıl Damla. “KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 30, sy 1, Ocak 2020, ss. 66-74, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.637076.

Vancouver

1.İşıl Damla Şener Yamaner. KISA İMPLANTLARIN 19 AYLIK GERİYE DÖNÜK KLİNİK BAŞARILARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 01 Ocak 2020;30(1):66-74. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.637076