Journals / Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Dental Implant Applications

Dental İmplant Uygulamalarının Demografik ve Klinik Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
143–150
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)

The most frequently implanted tooth was mandibular 1.molar. 15,16,25,35,36,37,46,47 teeth were preferred in the 40-49 age group (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim:Dental implant application is a successful treatment for single or multiple tooth missing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods:In this retrospective study, a total of 1651 dental implants (514 patients aged between 18-79 years and administered to Inönü University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periondotology between March 2016 and December 2018) were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most frequently implanted tooth was mandibular 1.molar. 15,16,25,35,36,37,46,47 teeth were preferred in the 40-49 age group (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim:Dental implant application is a successful treatment for single or multiple tooth missing. The aim of this study was to investigate the demographic and clinical conditions of the patients who underwent implant surgery retrospectively. Materials and Methods:In this retrospective study, a total of 1651 dental implants (514 patients aged between 18-79 years and administered to Inönü University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periondotology between March 2016 and December 2018) were evaluated. Patient’s age, gender, systemic health, condition of edentulous, time of loading, additional surgical procedures, areas where implant was applied, type of retoration after treatment and various characteristics of implants such as size, brand and type were examined retrospectively.Results:55.3% of patients (n=284) were female and 44.7%(n=230) were male. The highest number of patients constituted the 40-49 age group with 29.8%(n=153). The most frequently implanted tooth was mandibular 1.molar. 15,16,25,35,36,37,46,47 teeth were preferred in the 40-49 age group (p

Özet

Amaç: Dental implant uygulamaları, çoklu veya tek diş kayıplarında sık olarak uygulanmakta olan yüksek başarı oranlarına sahip bir tedavi yöntemidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kliniğimizde dental implant cerrahisi uygulanan hastaların demografik ve klinik durumlarını ve yerleştirilen implantların özelliklerini retrospektif olarak incelemektir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada 2016 Mart ayı ile 2018 Aralık ayı tarihleri arasında İnönü Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Periondotoloji anabilim dalına implant tedavisi için başvuran, yaşları 18-79 arasında değişen toplam 514 hastaya uygulanan 1651 implant değerlendirildi. Hastaların yaş, cinsiyet, sistemik durumu, dişsizlik durumu, yükleme zamanı, ek cerrahi işlemler, implant uygulanan bölgeler, tedavi sonrası restorasyon tipi ve yerleştirilen implantların boyut, marka ve tip gibi çeşitli özellikleri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Bulgular: Hastaların, %55,3’ü (n=284) kadın, %44,7’si (n=230) ise erkekti. En yüksek hasta sayısını, %29,8 (n=153) ile 40-49 yaş grubu oluşturmuştur. En sık implant uygulanan diş bölgesinin mandibular 1.molar diş olduğu bulunmuştur. 40-49 yaş grubunda 15, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47 numaralı diş bölgelerine implant yapılması istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p

🔖

Cite This Article

USLU, M. Ö., BOZKURT, E. (2022). Evaluation of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Dental Implant Applications. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 143–150. https://ajindex.com/articles/494673

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Wang HL, Shotwell JL, Itose T, Neiva RF. Multidisciplinary treatment approach for enhancement of implant esthetics. Implant Dent. 2005; 14(1): 21-9
  2. Tsirlis AT. Clinical evaluation of immediate loaded upper anterior single implants. Implant Dent. 2005; 14(1): 94-103
  3. Stanford CM. Application of oral implants to the general dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136(8): 1092-100 4. Klokkevold PR. Implant education in the dental curriculum. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2001; 29(11): 747- 55
  4. Taş DB, Önal DL, Kömerik N. Diş hekimlerinin implant tedavisine yaklaşımı. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2012; 18(1): 17-22
  5. Mattheos N, Ucer C, Van de Velde T, Nattestad A. Assessment of knowledge and competencies related to implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate university education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2009; 13 Suppl 1: 55-65
  6. Faggion CM Jr, Apaza K, Ariza-Fritas T, Malaga L, Giannakopoulos NN, Alarcon MA. Correction: Methodological quality of consensus guidelines in implant dentistry. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0173437
  7. Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ, Rangert B. Immediate functional loading of Branemark system implants in edentulous mandibles: Clinical report of the results of developmental and simplified protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(2): 250-7
  8. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2006; 85(6): 496-500
  9. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Bragger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(5): 441-51 11.Barewal RM, Oates TW, Meredith N, Cochran DL. Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(5): 641-51
  10. Sollazzo V, Pezzetti F, Scarano A, Piattelli A, Bignozzi CA, Massari L, et al. Zirconium oxide coating improves implant osseointegration in vivo. Dent Mater. 2008; 24(3): 357-61. 13.Blay A, Blay CC, Tunchel S, Gehrke SA, Shibli JA, Groth EB, et al. Effects of a low-intensity laser on dental implant osseointegration: Removal torque and resonance frequency analysis in rabbits. J Oral Implantol. 2016; 42(4): 316-20
  11. Tarnow D, Cho S, Wallace S. The effect of interimplant distance on the height of inter-imp