Journals / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2013 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of marginal bone resorption in implant supported crown restorations

İmplant üstü kron restorasyonlarda marjinal kemik kaybının incelenmesi

Pages
188–196
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Conclusion: As a result of this study, ratio of crown length-implant length, implant diameter, implant type and follow-up periods of implant supported restoration cause bone loss within acceptable limits.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study is, to investigate the effects of crown length-implant length ratios, implant diameters implant types and follow-up periods of patients on the marginal bone loss in the implant-supported restorations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The lengths of dental implants were measured on the orthopantographs that were taken after implantation and after restoration at the follow-up of 61 implant-supported restoration restorated in Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: As a result of this study, ratio of crown length-implant length, implant diameter, implant type and follow-up periods of implant supported restoration cause bone loss within acceptable limits.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is, to investigate the effects of crown length-implant length ratios, implant diameters implant types and follow-up periods of patients on the marginal bone loss in the implant-supported restorations. Materials and Methods: The lengths of dental implants were measured on the orthopantographs that were taken after implantation and after restoration at the follow-up of 61 implant-supported restoration restorated in Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry. The magnification ratio of radiographs was calculated with the measured lengths of implants and the real lengths of implants. Then, averages of mesial and distal marginal bone levels were measured with reference to the implant neck. The differences between the marginal bone levels (magnification ratios were taken into account) that were measured from first and second orthopantographs were noted. Finally, the effects of crown length-implant length ratio, implant diameter, implant type and follow-up periods on the marginal bone loss were evaluated. Results: The effects of diameter of implant, type of implant and follow-up period of implant- supported restorations on the marginal bone loss were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The implants that have crown length-implant length ratio above 1 showed more marginal bone loss than the implants that have crown length-implant length ratio below 0.5. And this difference was statistically significant (p=0.006). Marginal bone loss values of all subgroups were within clinically acceptable limits. Conclusion: As a result of this study, ratio of crown length-implant length, implant diameter, implant type and follow-up periods of implant supported restoration cause bone loss within acceptable limits.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalış manın amacı, implant üstü kron restorasyonlarında kron boyu-implant boyu oranlarının, implant çaplarının, implant tiplerinin ve implant kullanım sürelerinin marjinal kemik kaybı üzerine etkilerinin incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Erciyes Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliğ i Fakültesinde yapılan 61 implant üstü kron restorasyonundan, implantlar yerleş tirildikten hemen sonra ve restorasyonlar tamamlandıktan sonra kontrol randevularında alınan iki panoramik röntgen üzerinde, resim düzenleme yazılımı kullanılarak dental implantların boyu ölçüldü. Radyograflar üzerinde tespit edilen implant boyu, implantın gerçek boyuna oranlanarak panoramik radyografın magnifikasyon miktarı hesaplandı. Daha sonra, implantın boynu referans alınarak mezial ve distal noktalardan ölçülen marjinal kemik seviyelerinin ortalamaları alındı. Her iki panoramik radyograftan elde edilen marjinal kemik seviyeleri arası fark (magnifikasyon oranı da hesap edilerek) not edildi. Sonuç olarak, kron boyu-implant boyu oranı, implant çapı, implant tipi ve implant kullanım sürelerinin marjinal kemik kaybına etkisi değ erlendirildi. Bulgular: İmplant çapının, implant tipinin ve takip süresinin marjinal kemik kaybına etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamış tır (p>0,05). Kron boyu-implant boyu oranı 0,5in altında olan grupla 1in üzerinde olan grup arasında marjinal kemik kaybı bakımından anlamlı farklılık bulunmuş tur (p=0,006). Tüm alt gruplar için elde edilen kemik kaybı değ erleri klinik olarak kabul edilebilir sınırlar içerisindedir. Sonuç: Çalış mamızın sonucunda, kron boyu- implant boyu, implant çapı, implant tipi ve takip süresinin implant üstü kron restorasyonlarının marjinal kemik seviyesinde kabul edilebilir sınırlarda kemik kaybına sebep olduğ u sonucuna ulaş ılmış tır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KESİM, B., KILINÇ, H. İ., KANDEMİR, B. Ç., KILIÇ, K. (2022). Evaluation of marginal bone resorption in implant supported crown restorations. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 3, 188–196. https://ajindex.com/articles/477193

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Lopez-Maril, Calvo-Guirado JL, Martin-Castellote B, Gomez-Moreno G, Lopez-Mari M. Implant platform switching concept: an updated review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14: 450-454
  2. Esposito M, Hiersch J-M, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106:527–551
  3. Levent H. Fonksiyonel ve Parafonksiyonel Kuvvetlerin İmplantlara Etkisi. AnkaraÜniversitesi Diş Hekimliğ i Fakültesi Protetik Diş Tedavisi A.D. Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 1997
  4. Iplikcioglu H, Akca K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stres distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30: 41-46
  5. Lum LB, Osier JF. Load transfer from endosteal implants to supporting bone: an analysis using statics. Part one: Horizontal loading. J Oral Implantol 1992;18: 343-348
  6. Weinberg LA, Kruger B. An evaluation of torque (moment) on implant/prosthesis with staggered buccal and lingual stres. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:252-265
  7. Misch, CE. Posterior single-tooth replacement. In: Dental implant prosthetics. Ed. Misch, C.E, Perel M.L. 1th ed. Elsevier Mosby. St Louis, p:360, 2005
  8. Misch, CE. Avaliable bone and implant dentistry. In: Dental implant prosthetics. Ed. Misch, C.E, Perel M.L. 1th ed. Elsevier Mosby. St Louis, p:107, 2005
  9. Adell R, Lecholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI, Lindhe J, Eriksson B, et al. Marginal tissue reaction at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3 year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986; 15: 39-521
  10. Appleton RS, Nummikoski PV, Pigno MA, Cronin RJ, Chung K-H. A radiographic assesment of progressive loading on bone around single osseointegrated implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:161-167
  11. Arvidson K, Bystedt H, Frykholm A, von Konow L, Lothigius E. Five- year prospective follow-up report of the Astra Tech Dental Implant System in the treatment of edentulous mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:225-234
  12. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Kertsin E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Branemark system implants: a 5- year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:413-420
  13. Bahat, O. Branemark system implants in the posterior jaw: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:646-653
  14. Kitamura E,