Açılı İmplant Uygulama Sistemlerinde İmplant Pozisyonu, Diş Tasarımı ve Açının Marjinal Kemik Rezorpsiyonu Üzerine Etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 3 Issue: 4, 120 - 126, 24.12.2024

Hüsna Aktürk , Ulviye Çapkat , Esra Bilgi Özyetim , Cağatay Dayan , Onur Geckili , Mustafa Ramazanoğlu

Abstract

All on four sistemi ile; mandibulada mental formenler arası bölgeye, maksillada maksiller sinüsler arası bölgeye anteriorda iki vertikal, sağ ve sol posteriorda açılı birer implant uygulamasını takiben aynı seansta sabit geçici protez uygulanır. Bu çalışmanın amacı All on four cerrahisi sonrasi implant konumu, yiv yapısı ve açılandırmanın marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonuna etkisini tespit etmektir.
17hastaya, iki farklı formda(level, rapid) ,92 adet implant uygulanmıştır. 1 yıllık takiplerinde panoramik radyografiler üzerinden marjinal kemik kayıpları karşılaştırılmıştır. İmplantların tipi, implantların konumu ve çeneler arasındaki marjinal kemik kaybı farkları Mann Whitney U testi ile analiz edilmiş, istatistik anlamlılık düzeyi 0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir.
Total kemik kaybı mandibulada ortalama 0,2994mm(SS=0,80026); maksillada ortalama 0,3992mm(SS=0,43636), açılı implantlarda ortalama 0,4377mm(SS=0,82100); aksiyal implantlarda ortalama 0,2682mm(SS=0,41187), level form implantlarda ortalama 0,3785mm(SS=0,70581); rapid form implantlarda ortalama 0,2789mm(SS=0,46179) olarak ölçülmüştür. Total marjinal kemik kayıpları yönünden açılı implantlar yönünde anlamlı fark bulunmuş; maksilla-mandibula , implant yiv formları açısından değerlendirildiğinde anlamlı fark bulunamamıştır.

Keywords

All on four, yiv şekli, açılı implantlar, marjinal kemik kaybı, kemik rezorpsiyonu

The Effect of Implant Position, Thread Design and Tilting on Marginal Bone Resorption in Tilted Implant System

Abstract

The all-on-four system utilizes 2 parallel anterior implants and 2 distally tilted posterior implants between mental foramina on mandible, between maxillar sinuses on maxilla with an immediately loaded temporary fixed prosthesis. Purpose of this study is evaluating the effect of implant position, thread design and tilting on marginal bone resorption after all-on-four surgery.
17 patient recieved 92 implants with 2 different forms(level,rapid). Radiographic assessment of marginal bone level change was performed at 1 year follow-up period. The differences between marginal bone resorption for implant position, thread design and tilting degree were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test. The value p = 0,05 was considered as the level of significance.
Total marginal bone level was, on average, 0,2994mm(SD=0,80026)for mandible, 0,3992mm(SD=0,43636) for maxilla, 0,4377mm(SD=0,82100) for tilted implants, 0,2682mm(SD=0,41187) for axial implants, 0,3785mm(SD=0,70581) for level form implants, 0,2789mm(SD=0,46179) for rapid form implants. Mean bone loss was significantly higher in the tilted implants. There is no significant difference found in marginal bone loss between the maxilla-mandible and different threaded implant forms.

Keywords

all-on- four, thread design, tilted implants, marginal bone loss, bone resorption

References

• 1. Panchbhai AS. Quantitative estimation of vertical heights of maxillary and mandibular jawbones in elderly dentate and edentulous subjects. Special Care in Dentistry. 2013;33(2):62-69.
• 2. Resnik R. Misch’s Contemproray Implant Dentistry. Vol 1. 4th ed.; 2021.
• 3. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(3):399-410.
• 4. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Kotsakis GA, Hinrichs JE. Patientrelated and financial outcomes analysis of conventional fullarch rehabilitation versus the all-on-4 concept: A cohort study. Implant Dent. 2014;23(2):218-224.
• 5. Agliardi EL, Pozzi A, Stappert CFJ, Benzi R, Romeo D, Gherlone E. Immediate fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: A prospective clinical and radiological study after 3 years of loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(2):292-302.
• 6. Chan MH, Holmes C. Contemporary “All-on-4” Concept. Dent Clin North Am. 2015;59(2):421-470.
• 7. Misch CE, Arbor A. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 2nd editio.; 2015.
• 8. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System® implants for completely edentulous maxillae: A 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(SUPPL. 1):s88-s94.
• 9. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-four” immediate-function concept with brånemark system® implants for completely edentulous mandibles: A retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(SUPPL. 1):2-9.
• 10. Taruna M, Chittaranjan B, Sudheer N, Tella S, Abusaad Md. Prosthodontic Perspective to All-On-4® Concept for Dental Implants. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(10):16-19.
• 11. Horita S, Sugiura T, Yamamoto K, Murakami K, Imai Y, Kirita T. Biomechanical analysis of immediately loaded implants according to the “All-on-Four” concept. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(2):123-132.
• 12. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, Worthington P EAR. The Long-Term Efficacy of Currently Used Denta…. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.
• 13. Resnik R, Misch CE. Avoiding Complications in Oral Implantology. 1st ed. Elsevier; 2017.
• 14. Francetti L, Agliardi E, Testori T, Romeo D, Taschieri S, Fabbro M del. Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: Interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10(4):255-263.
• 15. Villa G, Stavola L de, Fincato A, et al. 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- 651.
• 16. Butura CC, Galindo DF, Jensen OT. Mandibular All-On-Four Therapy Using Angled Implants: A Three-Year Clinical Study of 857 Implants in 219 Jaws. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23(2):289-300.
• 17. Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Botto J. The Allon- 4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(4):565-577.
• 18. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10(6):387-416.
• 19. Brånemark P ‐I, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten‐year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Brånemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(4):227-231.
• 20. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindström H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(3):405-414.
• 21. Bellini CM, Romeo D, Galbusera F, et al. Comparison of tilted versus nontilted implant-supported prosthetic designs for the restoration of the edentuous mandible: a biomechanical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(3):511-517.
• 22. Morton D, Gallucci G, Lin WS, et al. Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Prosthodontics and implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:215-223.
• 23. Maló P, Nobre MDA, Petersson U, Wigren S. A pilot study of complete edentulous rehabilitation with immediate function using a new implant design: Case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(4):223-232.
• 24. Gaonkar SH, Aras MA, Chitre V, Mascarenhas K, Amin B. Survival rates of axial and tilted implants in the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using the All on four concept : A systematic review. 2021;21:3-10.
• 25. Patzelt SBM, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The All-on-Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(6):836-855.
• 26. Wu AYJ, Hsu JT, Fuh LJ, Huang HL. Biomechanical effect of implant design on four implants supporting mandibular full-arch fixed dentures: In vitro test and finite element analysis. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2020;119(10):1514-1523.
• 27. Pera P, Menini M, Pesce P, Bevilacqua M, Pera F, Tealdo T. Immediate Versus Delayed Loading of Dental Implants Supporting Fixed Full-Arch Maxillary Prostheses: A 10-year Follow-up Report. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;32(1):27-31.