Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12

A retrospective analysis of single dental implants in three different diameters

Pages
2821–2826
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Treatment with single-tooth implants was shown to be a successful treatment with a high survival ratewhen factors such as implant diameter/length and age/sex of the patient are considered.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the distribution of intra-osseous dental implants in the mandible and maxilla applied tocorrect single missing tooth defects in terms of their size and length and retrospectively evaluate the implant loss rate.Material and methods: Demographic data showing the age/sex and dental implant records of 180 patients who underwent dentalimplant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from archival records.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients with a missing single toothin the mandible and maxilla who had an implantation in three different diameters (4.1 mm, 4.5 mm, 4.8 mm) were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Treatment with single-tooth implants was shown to be a successful treatment with a high survival ratewhen factors such as implant diameter/length and age/sex of the patient are considered.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the distribution of intra-osseous dental implants in the mandible and maxilla applied tocorrect single missing tooth defects in terms of their size and length and retrospectively evaluate the implant loss rate.Material and methods: Demographic data showing the age/sex and dental implant records of 180 patients who underwent dentalimplant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from archival records. Patients with a missing single toothin the mandible and maxilla who had an implantation in three different diameters (4.1 mm, 4.5 mm, 4.8 mm) were included. Theanatomical localizations, height characteristics and rate of losses concerning the implants were analyzed by descriptive statisticalanalysis.Results: Of the 180 patients, 79 received dental implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm; 49 received dental implants with a diameter of4.5 mm and 52 received dental implants with a diameter of 4.8 mm, making it 221 in total. The mean age of the patients included inthe study was 43.1 years. Of the 180 patients, 105 (58.3%) were male and 75 (41.7%) were female. The length of the most commonlyused implant was 14 mm (34%) with a diameter of 4.1 mm (45.2%). Of the 221 implants examined, 111 were placed on the maxilla(50.22%) and 110 on the mandible (49.78%). Of the implants examined, 18 were implanted in the anterior region (8.14%); 33 in thepremolar region (15%) and 170 in the molar region (77%).Conclusion: This retrospective study found that single-tooth implant treatment covers a wide range of ages, mainly applied topatients aged 30 to 40 years. Treatment with single-tooth implants was shown to be a successful treatment with a high survival ratewhen factors such as implant diameter/length and age/sex of the patient are considered.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRKOL, N., OZ, Ö. P., ERCİL, M. (2022). A retrospective analysis of single dental implants in three different diameters. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12, 2821–2826. https://ajindex.com/articles/446636

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Rinke S, Roediger M, Eickholz P, et al. Technical and biological complications of singlemolar implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1024-30
  2. Yalcin M, Kaya B, Lacin N, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of endosteal implants with different macro designs on stress distribution in different bone qualities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:e43-e50
  3. Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2010;55:341-50
  4. Van Oosterwyck H, Duyck J, Vander Sloten J, et al. The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:407-18
  5. Kayabasi O, Yuzbasioglu E, Erzincanlı F. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviors of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37:649-58 6. Meric G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, et al. Biomechanical effects of two different collar implant structures on stress distribution under cantilever fixed partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69:374-84
  6. Akça K, Iplikcioglu H. Finite element stress analysis of the influence of staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:722-30
  7. Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akca K. Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent 2004;32:123-32
  8. Eltas A, Dundar DS, Uzun İH, ve ark. Dental implant başarısının ve hasta profilinin değerlendirilmesi: retrospektif bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013;23:1-8
  9. Lee JY, Park HJ, Kim JE, et al. A 5-year retrospective clinical study of the Dentium implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:229-35
  10. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, et al. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants,(I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Euro J Oral Sci 1998;106:527-51
  11. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants,(II). Etiopathogenesis. Euro J Oral Sci 1998;106:721-64
  12. Esposito M, Thomsen P, Ericson LE, et al. Histopathologic observations on late oral implant failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:18-32
  13. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10–16-year follow-up of non- submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:772-7
  14. Berglundh T,