ABSTRACT
Endosseous implants are used in the treatment of various types of tooth loss, and numerous long-term studies have demonstrated the excellent reliability of this method of treatment. However, the increase of implant failure are associated with inadequate quality and/or height of bone. At the end of the 1980s, Wide(>3.75mm) implants were initially used for managing these difficult bone situations. The recommended indications for its use included poor bone quality, inadequate bone height, immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets, and immediate replacement of failed implants. At the 2000s, wider implants(6.0mm and 6.5mm) were used in a few studies. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in recent years, there is still a controversy on this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the survival rate of wide implants(6.0~8.0mm) in molar regions, evaluating the clinical outcome. In this study, 1135 RBM surfaced wide implants(Rescue(TM), MEGAZEN Co., Korea/ 595 maxillary, 540 mandibular) were placed in 650 patients(403 male, 247 female/age mean: 51.2+/-11.1 years, range 20 to 83 years). Of the total, 68.3% were used to treat fully or partially edentulous situations, including single-tooth losses and 31.7% were placed immediately after teeth extraction or removal of failed implants, of which all were in the molar regions. Implant diameter and length ranged from 6.0 to 8.0mm and from 5.0 to 10.0mm, respectively. The implants were followed for up to 42 months (mean: 14.6+/-9.5 months). Of 1135 placed implants, 58 implants were lost. Among them, 53 implants were lost within 12 months after implant placement. The survival rate was 93.6% in the maxilla and 96.3% in the mandible, yielding an overall survival rate of 94.9%, for up to 42 months. As the result of Cox regression model, prosthetic type, sinus graft, and patient gender have an statistical significance on the implant survival rate in this study. This study suggests that the use of wide implants(6.0~8.0mm) would provide a predictable treatment alternative in posterior areas.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Mandible , Maxilla , Molar , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Tooth , Tooth Loss , TransplantsABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: More than 70% of patients who need the implant supported restoration are parially edentulous. The principles of design for implant supported fixed partial denture in mandibular posterior region are many and varied. Jurisdiction for their use is usually based on clinical evaluation. There are several areas of interest regarding the design of implant supported fixed partial denture in mandibular posterior region. 1) Straight and tripod configuration in implant placement, 2) Two restoration types such as individualized and splinted restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the amount and distribution of stress around the implant fixtures placed in the mandibular posterior region with two different arrangements and to evaluate the effects of splinting using the photoelastic stress analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1) Production of study model: Mandibular partially edentulous model was waxed-up and duplicated with silicone and two models were poured in stone. 2) Fixture installation and photoelastic model construction: Using surveyor(Ney, USA), 3 fixtures(two 4.0x13 mm, one 5.0x10 mm, Lifecore, USA) were installed in straight and tripod configurations. Silicone molds were made and poured in photoelastic resin (PL-2. Measurements group, USA). 3) Prostheses construction: Four 3-unit bridges (Type III gold alloy, Dongmyung co., Korea) were produced with nonhexed and hexed UCLA abutments and fitted with conventional methods. The abutments were tightened with 30 Ncm torque and the static loads were applied at 12 points of the occlusal surface. 4) Photoelastic stress analysis: The polarizer analyzer system with digital camera(S-2 Pro, Fujifilm, Japan) was used to take the photoelastic fringes and analysed using computer analysis program. RESULTS: Solitary hexed UCLA restoration developed different stress patterns between two implant arrangement configurations, but there were no stress transfer to adjacent implants from the loaded implant in both configurations. However splinted restorations showed lesser amount of stresses in the loaded implants and showed stress transfer to adjacent implants in both configurations. Solitary hexed UCLA restoration with tripod configuration developed higher stresses in anterior and middle implants under loading than implants with straight configurations. Splintied 3 unit fixed partial dentures with tripod configuration showed higher stress development in posterior implant under loading but there were no obvious differences between two configurations. CONCLUSIONS: The tripod configuration of implant arrangement didn't show any advantages over the straight configuration. Splinting of 3 unit bridges with nonhexed UCLA abutments showed less stress development around the fixtures. Solitary hexed UCLA restoration developed tilting of implant fixture under offset loads.