사체의 장골에서 수용부 형성방법에 따른 임플란트 일차 안정성
Primary stability of implants in ilium of cadaver by the methods of recipient site preparation
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of OsstellTM and Periotest in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. Periotest (Simens AG, Germany) and OsstellTM(Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer’s recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using OsstellTM and Periotest mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using OsstellTM and Periotest buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using OsstellTM and Periotest mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in OsstellTM, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of OsstellTM and Periotest (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.
Abstract
This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of OsstellTM and Periotest in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. Periotest (Simens AG, Germany) and OsstellTM(Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer’s recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using OsstellTM and Periotest mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using OsstellTM and Periotest buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using OsstellTM and Periotest mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in OsstellTM, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of OsstellTM and Periotest (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.
참고문헌 (27)
- Adel R, "A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw", Int J Oral Surg, 10, pp.387~416 (1981)
- Esposito M, "Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I) Success criteria and epidemiology", Euro J Oral Science, 106, pp.527~551 (1998)
- Lindeboom JAH, "Immediate placement of implants in periapical infected sites : A prospective randomized study in 50 patients", Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endocrinol, 101, pp.705~710 (2006)
- Degidi M, "Comparative analysis study of 702 dental implants subjected to immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods with a follow-up of up to 24 months", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 20, pp.99~107 (2005)
- Simsek B, "Evaluation of success rates of immediate and delayed implants after tooth extraction", Chinese Med J, 116, pp.1216~1219 (2003)
- Buser D, "Interface shear strength of titanium with sandblasted and acidetched surface: A biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs", J Biomed Mater Res, 45, pp.75~83 (1999)
- 대한구강악안면임플란트학회, "구강악안면임플란트학, Vol II Advanced concepts and techniques, 제1판", pp.326~ (2006), 서울: 나래출판사
- Glauser R, "Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading", Clin Oral Implants Res, 15, pp.428~434 (2004)
- Friberg B, "A comparison between cutting torque and resonance frequency measurements of maxillary implants. A 20-month clinical study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 28, pp.297~303 (1999)
- Mericske-Stern R, "Periotest measurements and osseointegration of mandibular ITI implants supporting overdentures", Clin Oral Implants Res, 6, pp.73~82 (1995)
- Meredith N, "Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant", Int J Prosthodont, 11, pp.491~501 (1998)
- Brunski JB, "The influence of force, motion and related qunatities on the response of bone to implants. In : Fizgerald J. Non-cemented total hip arthroplasty", pp.7~21 (1998), New York : Raven
- McNutt MD, "Current trends in immediate osseousdental implant case selection criteria", J Dent Edu, 67, pp.850~859 (2003)
- Douglass GL, "The immediate dental implant", J California Dent Assoc, 30, pp.362~365 (2002)
- Fugazzotto PA, "Simplified technique for immediate implant insertion into extraction sockets: report of technique and preliminary results", Implant Dent, 11, pp.79~82 (2002)
- Kaneko TM, "Pulsed oscillation technique for assessing the mechanical state of the dental implant-bone interface", Biomat, 12, pp.555~560 (1991)
- Akkocaoglu M, "Primary stability of simultaneously placed dental implants in extraoral donor graft sites: a human cadaver study", J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 65, pp.400~407 (2007)
- Meredith N, "Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequencyanalysis", Clin Oral Implants Res, 7, pp.261~267 (1996)
- Meredith N, "A review of nondestructive test methods and their application to measure the stability and osseointegration of bone anchored endosseous implants", Crit Rev Biomed Eng, 26, pp.275~291 (1998)
- Meredith N, "Assessment of Implant stability as prognostic determinant", Int J Prosthodont, 11, pp.491~501 (1998)
- Lekholm U, "Patient selection and preparation, in Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T(eds): Tissue integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry", pp.199~209 (1985), Chicago, Quintessence
- 김선재, "Periotest를 이용한 임플란트 동요도에 관한 임상적 연구", 대한치과보철학회지, 36, pp.758~771 (1998)
- Manz MC, "An evaluation of the Periotest23.system. Part Ⅰ:Examination reliability and repeatability of readings", Implant Dent, 1, pp.142~146 (1992)
- Nkenk E, "Histomorphometric and fluorescence microscopic analysis of bone remodelling after installation of implants using osteotome technique", Clin Oral Implants Res, 13, pp.595~602 (2002)
- Olsson M, "Early loading of maxillary fixed cross-arch dental prostheses supported by six or eight oxidized titanium implants: results after 1 year of loading, case series", Clin Implant Dent Rel Res, 5, pp.81~85 (2003)
- Teerlinck G, "Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 6, pp.55~61 (1991)
- Huang HM, "Early detection of implant healing process using resonance frequency analysis", Clin Oral Implants Res, 14, pp.437~443 (2003)