Analysis of factors affecting the long-term status of adjacent and antagonistic teeth in relation to dental implants
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The aim of this study is to investigate factors that affect the prognosis of adjacent and antagonistic teeth after an implant restoration. In total, 102 implant placement sites of 91 patients who underwent implant placement in Kyungpook National University Dental Hospital were included in this study. The average follow-up period was 68.27 months, whereas the maximum was 136 months. The cause of the previous extraction and implant-related factors were investigated. Radiographic evaluations were performed after the surgery and prosthetic treatment. Extraction and other treatments, including restorative or endodontic treatment of the antagonistic and adjacent teeth, were analyzed during the follow-up period. The chi-square test and Fisher exact test were used to analyze which factors could affect the implant prognosis. Of the studied antagonistic teeth, a total of 4.9% were treated and 12.7% were extracted. Furthermore, of the studied adjacent teeth, a total of 2.9% underwent treatment and 3.9% were extracted. The causes of previous extractions and types of restoration materials showed a significant difference in the treatment rate of adjacent teeth (p=0.05). Furthermore, implant surface types showed a significant difference in the extraction rate of antagonistic teeth (p=0.05). In conclusion, it can be suggested that the cause of the previous extraction and the material of the implant restoration may affect the prognosis of the teeth adjacent to the implant. Moreover, a specific type of implant surface may be a risk factor for antagonistic teeth.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate factors that affect the prognosis of adjacent and antagonistic teeth after an implant restoration. In total, 102 implant placement sites of 91 patients who underwent implant placement in Kyungpook National University Dental Hospital were included in this study. The average follow-up period was 68.27 months, whereas the maximum was 136 months. The cause of the previous extraction and implant-related factors were investigated. Radiographic evaluations were performed after the surgery and prosthetic treatment. Extraction and other treatments, including restorative or endodontic treatment of the antagonistic and adjacent teeth, were analyzed during the follow-up period. The chi-square test and Fisher exact test were used to analyze which factors could affect the implant prognosis. Of the studied antagonistic teeth, a total of 4.9% were treated and 12.7% were extracted. Furthermore, of the studied adjacent teeth, a total of 2.9% underwent treatment and 3.9% were extracted. The causes of previous extractions and types of restoration materials showed a significant difference in the treatment rate of adjacent teeth (p=0.05). Furthermore, implant surface types showed a significant difference in the extraction rate of antagonistic teeth (p=0.05). In conclusion, it can be suggested that the cause of the previous extraction and the material of the implant restoration may affect the prognosis of the teeth adjacent to the implant. Moreover, a specific type of implant surface may be a risk factor for antagonistic teeth.
참고문헌 (22)
- Adell R, "A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw", Int J Oral Surg, 10, pp.387~416 (1981)[DOI]
- Jemt T, "Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients : a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 4, pp.211~217 (1989)
- Buser D, "Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration : 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions", Periodontol 2000, 73, pp.7~21 (2017)[DOI]
- Duqum I, "The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth : a chart review", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 20, pp.479~482 (2018)[DOI]
- Priest G, "Single-tooth implants and their role in preserving remaining teeth : a 10-year survival study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 14, pp.181~188 (1999)
- Krennmair G, "Status of teeth adjacent to single-tooth implants", Int J Prosthodont, 16, pp.524~528 (2003)
- Misch CE, "Posterior implant single-tooth replacement and status of adjacent teeth during a 10-year period : a retrospective report", J Periodontol, 79, pp.2378~2382 (2008)[DOI]
- Urdaneta RA, "Factors associated with crestal bone gain on single-tooth locking-taper implants : the effect of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 26, pp.1063~1078 (2011)
- Urdaneta RA, "The effect of opposing structures, natural teeth vs. implants on crestal bone levels surrounding single-tooth implants", Clin Oral Implants Res, 25, pp.e179~e188 (2014)[DOI]
- 박수연, "Long-term outcomes of adjacent and antagonistic teeth after implant restoration: a focus on patient-related factors", Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science, 51(2), pp.135~143 (2021), 대한치주과학회[DOI]
- Yamazaki S, "A retrospective comparative 8-year study of cumulative complications in teeth adjacent to both natural and implantsupported fixed partial dentures", Int J Prosthodont, 26, pp.260~264 (2013)[DOI]
- Ivanoff CJ, "Influence of variations in implant diameters : a 3-to 5-year retrospective clinical report", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 14, pp.173~180 (1999)
- Young DA, "The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for clinical practice : a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs", J Am Dent Assoc, 146, pp.79~86 (2015)[DOI]
- Smith RB, "Influence of implant-tooth proximity on incidence of caries in teeth adjacent to implants in molar sites : a retrospective radiographic analysis of 300 consecutive implants", Compend Contin Educ Dent, 41, pp.e1~e5 (2020)
- Suzuki S, "Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel", J Am Dent Assoc, 127, pp.74~80 (1996)[DOI]
- Yip KH, "Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials : clinical implications", Int J Prosthodont, 17, pp.350~356 (2004)
- Martin Rosentritt, "Influence of zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth- or implantsupported crowns on wear of antagonistic and adjacent teeth", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 12(1), pp.1~8 (2020), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Hudson JD, "Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials", J Prosthet Dent, 74, pp.647~654 (1995)[DOI]
- Ramp MH, "Evaluation of wear : enamel opposing three ceramic materials and a gold alloy", J Prosthet Dent, 77, pp.523~530 (1997)[DOI]
- Kwon M, "Two-body wear comparison of zirconia crown, gold crown, and enamel against zirconia", J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 47, pp.21~28 (2015)[DOI]
- Mundhe K, "Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns", J Prosthet Dent, 114, pp.358~363 (2015)[DOI]
- Machtei EE, "Axial relationship between dental implants and teeth", implants : a radiographic study, 2014, pp.40, 425~431
