Long-term clinical study of fixed prosthetic rehabilitation using one-piece narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study
3
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of one-piece narrow-diameter implants (NDIs), with diameters of 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm, and to investigate the factors that affect marginal bone loss (MBL) around these implants. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed patients who were treated with 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm MS SA narrow ridge implants (Osstem Implant) at the Section of Dentistry in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from 2007 to 2022 and had more than 6 years of follow-up data. MBL was measured using periapical radiographs. Age, sex, implant location, timing of implant placement and loading, placement depth, guided bone regeneration (GBR), fixture diameter, type of implant prosthesis, and opposing dentition type were investigated in relation to MBL. The implant survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with MBL. All analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.1.0 for Microsoft Windows; R Foundation). Results: Twenty-five patients with 40 NDIs were included in this study. The mean observation period after implant function was 10.5 years (range, 6.1 to 14.0 years), and the survival rate of the NDIs was 95.1% at the implant level and 96.0% at the patient level. The average amount of MBL was 0.44±0.57 mm. The only factor that showed a significant association with MBL was the presence of GBR (P=0.046). Conclusion: Within the limitations of a retrospective evaluation, NDIs have demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes over a long period in areas in which anatomical structures are limited. MBL around the NDI also showed clinically acceptable results, and a correlation with MBL was observed in cases in which a bone graft was performed. Further studies with a larger number of implants over extended periods are needed in the future.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of one-piece narrow-diameter implants (NDIs), with diameters of 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm, and to investigate the factors that affect marginal bone loss (MBL) around these implants. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed patients who were treated with 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm MS SA narrow ridge implants (Osstem Implant) at the Section of Dentistry in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from 2007 to 2022 and had more than 6 years of follow-up data. MBL was measured using periapical radiographs. Age, sex, implant location, timing of implant placement and loading, placement depth, guided bone regeneration (GBR), fixture diameter, type of implant prosthesis, and opposing dentition type were investigated in relation to MBL. The implant survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with MBL. All analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.1.0 for Microsoft Windows; R Foundation). Results: Twenty-five patients with 40 NDIs were included in this study. The mean observation period after implant function was 10.5 years (range, 6.1 to 14.0 years), and the survival rate of the NDIs was 95.1% at the implant level and 96.0% at the patient level. The average amount of MBL was 0.44±0.57 mm. The only factor that showed a significant association with MBL was the presence of GBR (P=0.046). Conclusion: Within the limitations of a retrospective evaluation, NDIs have demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes over a long period in areas in which anatomical structures are limited. MBL around the NDI also showed clinically acceptable results, and a correlation with MBL was observed in cases in which a bone graft was performed. Further studies with a larger number of implants over extended periods are needed in the future.
참고문헌 (32)
- French D, "Retrospective cohort study of 4591Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1 : multivariate survival analysis", Clin Oral Implants Res, 26, pp.1345~1354 (2015)[DOI]
- Pjetursson BE, "Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade : comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29(Suppl), pp.308~324 (2014)[DOI]
- Davarpanah M, "Small-diameter implants : indications and contraindications", J Esthet Dent, 12, pp.186~194 (2000)[DOI]
- Degidi M, "Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants : a retrospective study of 510 implants", J Periodontol, 79, pp.49~54 (2008)[DOI]
- Andersen E, "A prospective clinical study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of narrow-diameter threaded implants in the anterior region of the maxilla", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 16, pp.217~224 (2001)
- Polizzi G, "Clinical application of narrow Brånemark System implants for single-tooth restorations", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 14, pp.496~503 (1999)
- Klein MO, "Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29(Suppl), pp.43~54 (2014)[DOI]
- Schiegnitz E, "Narrow-diameter implants : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Clin Oral Implants Res, 29(Suppl 16), pp.21~40 (2018)[DOI]
- Lee JS, "Longterm retrospective study of narrow implants for fixed dental prostheses", Clin Oral Implants Res, 24, pp.847~852 (2013)[DOI]
- Marcantonio Junior E, "Influence of risk factors on the long-term survival of oral rehabilitation with extra-narrow implants : a retrospective study", J Appl Oral Sci, 30, pp.e20220089~ (2022)[DOI]
- Ivanoff CJ, "Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 26, pp.141~148 (1997)[DOI]
- Block MS, "The effect of diameter and length of hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants on ultimate pullout force in dog alveolar bone", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 48, pp.174~178 (1990)[DOI]
- Kido H, "Implant diameter and bone density : effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance", J Oral Implantol, 23, pp.163~169 (1997)
- Al-Nawas B, "A prospective noninterventional study to evaluate survival and success of reduced diameter implants made from titanium-zirconium alloy", J Oral Implantol, 41, pp.e118~e125 (2015)[DOI]
- Benic GI, "Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regulardiameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns : 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study", J Clin Periodontol, 40, pp.1052~1061 (2013)[DOI]
- Ebler S, "Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions-results at 1 year of loading", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.1169~1177 (2016)[DOI]
- Cordioli G, "Single-tooth implant rehabilitation : a retrospective study of 67 implants", Int J Prosthodont, 7, pp.525~531 (1994)
- Ekfeldt A, "Clinical evaluation of singletooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants : a retrospective study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 9, pp.179~183 (1994)
- McMillan AS, "A retrospective multicenter evaluation of single tooth implant experience at three centers in the United Kingdom", J Prosthet Dent, 79, pp.410~414 (1998)[DOI]
- Zarb GA, "The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients", Int J Prosthodont, 6, pp.189~196 (1993)
- Vigolo P, "Clinical evaluation of single-tooth mini-implant restorations : a five-year retrospective study", J Prosthet Dent, 84, pp.50~54 (2000)[DOI]
- Vigolo P, "Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns : a 4-year prospective clinical study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 19, pp.260~265 (2004)
- Shi JY, "Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws : a retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up", Clin Oral Implants Res, 29, pp.76~81 (2018)[DOI]
- Telles LH, "Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns : a systematic review", PLoS One, 14, pp.e0225046~ (2019)[DOI]
- Pieri F, "Narrow-(3. 0 mm)versus standard-diameter(4. 0 and 4. 5 mm)implants for splinted partial fixed restoration of posterior mandibular and maxillary jaws : a 5-year retrospective cohort study", J Periodontol, 88, pp.338~347 (2017)[DOI]
- Ahn JH, "A oneyear randomized controlled clinical trial of three types of narrowdiameter implants for fixed partial implant-supported prosthesis in the mandibular incisor area", Bioengineering(Basel), 11, pp.272~ (2024)[DOI]
- Hallman M, "A prospective study of treatment of severely resorbed maxillae with narrow nonsubmerged implants : results after 1 year of loading", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 16, pp.731~736 (2001)
- Hwang I, "Clinical evaluation of 3.0-mm narrowdiameter implants: a retrospective study with up to 5 years of observation", J Periodontal Implant Sci, 54, pp.44~52 (2024)[DOI]
- DI Girolamo M, "Bone level changes around platform switching and platform matching implants : a systematic review with meta-analysis", Oral Implantol(Rome), 9, pp.1~10 (2016)[DOI]
- Barfeie A, "Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration", Br Dent J, 218, pp.E9~ (2015)[DOI]
- Chiapasco M, "Clinical outcomes of GBR procedures to correct peri-implant dehiscences and fenestrations : a systematic review", Clin Oral Implants Res, 20(Suppl 4), pp.113~123 (2009)[DOI]
- Quek CE, "Load fatigue performance of a single-tooth implant abutment system : effect of diameter", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21, pp.929~936 (2006)