Journals / Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / 2021 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2

Survival and Success of implants with Laser-LokMicrochannels: A Retrospective Study of Cases with 5-YearFollow-Up

Laser-Lok Mikro Kanallı İmplantların Sağkalımı ve Başarısı: 5 Yıllık Takipli Vakaların Geriye Dönük Çalışması

Pages
123–130
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)

The most common prostheticcomplication was abutment screw loosing.Conclusion: Within the limitations of the observation period and sample number, the present findings confirmed sufficient success andsurvival rates for the implants placed in mandible as well as implants placed in the maxilla after a 5-year period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The use of osseointegrated implants as an endoestal anchorage device to provide support for dental prostheses is a reliableand widely accepted treatment modality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a dentalimplant system.Material and Methods: One hundred fifty-five consecutive patients (71 men, 84 women), aged between 18 and 72 years (mean: 54years) participated in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most common prostheticcomplication was abutment screw loosing.Conclusion: Within the limitations of the observation period and sample number, the present findings confirmed sufficient success andsurvival rates for the implants placed in mandible as well as implants placed in the maxilla after a 5-year period.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The use of osseointegrated implants as an endoestal anchorage device to provide support for dental prostheses is a reliableand widely accepted treatment modality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a dentalimplant system.Material and Methods: One hundred fifty-five consecutive patients (71 men, 84 women), aged between 18 and 72 years (mean: 54years) participated in this study. A total of 500 implants (internal; BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA) were inserted. The cases wereexamined retrospectively in order to evaluate the clinical efficiency of BioHorizons implants placed and to determine the success rateof implant supported prostheses after a 5-year follow-up period. All implants were assessed clinically and radiographically on a yearlybasis. Results: The 5-year cumulative success rates for maxillary and mandibular implants were 98.7% and 99.6%, respectively. Among allexamined implants, 4 failed to osseointegrate before loading, they were surgically removed and were considered as early failures.Failed implants were not associated with any clinical signs of periimplant infection with suppuration. The most common prostheticcomplication was abutment screw loosing.Conclusion: Within the limitations of the observation period and sample number, the present findings confirmed sufficient success andsurvival rates for the implants placed in mandible as well as implants placed in the maxilla after a 5-year period.

Özet

Amaç: Protetik tedavilere destek sağlamak amacıyla endosteel ankraj olarak osseointegre implantların kullanılması, güvenilir veyaygın olarak kabul gören bir tedavi yöntemidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir dental implant sisteminin uzun vadeli klinik performansınıdeğerlendirmektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu çalışmaya 18-72 yaşları arasında (ortalama:54 yaş) yüz elli beş ardışık hasta (71 erkek, 84 kadın) katıldı. Toplam500 implant (BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, ABD) yerleştirildi. Yerleştirilen BioHorizons implantların klinik etkinliğini değerlendirmekve 5 yıllık bir takip süresinden sonra implant destekli protezlerin başarı oranını belirlemek için vakalar geriye dönük olarak incelendi.Tüm implantlar yıllık periyotlarda klinik ve radyografik olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Üst ve alt çene implantlar için 5 yıllık kümülatif başarı oranları sırasıyla% 98.7 ve% 99.6 idi. İncelenen implantların 4'üyüklemeden önce osseoentegre olamadı, cerrahi olarak çıkarıldı ve erken başarısızlık olarak kabul edildi. Başarısız implantlar,süpürasyonlu periimplant enfeksiyonunun herhangi bir klinik belirtisi ile ilişkili değildi. En sık görülen protez komplikasyonu abutmentvidasının gevşemesi idi. Sonuç: Gözlem süresi ve örnek sayısına göre, mevcut bulgular alt çeneye yerleştirilen implantlar kadar üst çeneye yerleştirilenimplantların da 5 yıllık bir sürede yeterli oranda başarılı olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNBAY, T., SEZER, B., ÇÖMLEKOĞLU, E., ÇALIŞ, A. S., KOYUNCU, B. Ö. (2022). Survival and Success of implants with Laser-LokMicrochannels: A Retrospective Study of Cases with 5-YearFollow-Up. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 2, 123–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/496265

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Longterm follow-up of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5:347–359
  2. Cochran DL. The scientific basis for and clinical experiences with Straumann implants including the ITI Dental Implant System: a consensus report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(Suppl):33–58
  3. Bahat O. Brånemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15:646–653
  4. Levine RA, Clem D, Beagle J, et al. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the solid-screw ITI implant for posterior singletooth replacements. Int. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17:550–556
  5. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J, Butler B. ITI implant use in private practice: clinical results with 5,526 implants followed up to 72 months in function. Int. J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 408–412
  6. Misch, C.E. In Contemporary Implant Dentistry; Misch, C.E., Ed.; Mosby, Inc.: St. Louis, MO, USA Chapter 1,1999; p. 3. 7.Oshida Y, Tuna EB, Aktören O, Gençay K. Dental implant Systems.Int. J. Mol. Sci 2010; 11: 1580- 1678
  7. Schnitman PA, Shulman LB. Recommendations of the consensus development conference on dental implants. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98: 373–377
  8. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:567–572
  9. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990; 1:33–40
  10. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1:11–25
  11. Kim JS, Sohn JY, Park JC, Jung UW, Kim CS, Lee JH, Shim JS, Lee KW, Choi SH. Cumulative survival rate of Astra Tech implants: a retrospective analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci Apr 2011; 41(2): 86–91
  12. Schliephake H, Neukam FW, Wichmann M. Survival analysis of endosseous implants in bone grafts used for the treatment of severe alveolar ridge atrophy. Oral Maxillofac Surg.1997;Nov;55(11):1227-1233; discussion 1233-4
  13. Finne K, Rompen E, Toljanic J. Clinical evaluation of a prospective multicenter study on 1-piece implants. Part 1: marginal bone level evaluation after 1 year of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2007; Ma