EROL CANSIZ, BAŞAK KESKİN YALÇIN

Lazer ile dental implant yüzeyi pürüzlendirme yönteminin marjinal kemik kaybına etkisinin değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı lazer ile implant boyun yüzeyi pürüzlendirme işleminin marjinal alveol kemiği kaybına etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, toplam 171 standart yüzeyli (TRX, RBT) ve laserle pürüzlendirilmiş (TLX, LASER-Lok) implant uygulanmış 87 hastadan alınan postop 1. gün, 3. ay ve 3. yıl panaromik radyografiler incelenerek marjinal alveol kemiği kaybı ile ilgili değerlendirmeler yapıldı. İmplantların mesial ve distal yüzeylerinden bir bilgisayar yazılımı kullanılarak yapılan ölçümlerin ortalama değerli istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Yapılan istatistiksel analizler sonucunda TRX (kontrol grubu) ile TLX (deney grubu) arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı. Sonuç: Lazerle implant boyun yüzeyini pürüzlendirme yöntemi marjinal alveolar kemik rezorbsiyonunu önlemek için kullanılan bir yöntemdir. Literatürde bu yöntemin etkinliği ile ilgili olumlu çalışmalar bulunmasına rağmen bu çalışmada yöntemin etkinliğiyle ilgili anlamlı bir veri elde edilememiştir. Bu nedenle yöntemin etkinliğinin daha ayrıntılı ve daha uzun süreli takip çalışmaları ile değerlendirilmesi gereklidir.

Evaluation of the effect of laser microfrictioning on the marjinal bone resorption

Introduction: The aim of this research is to evaluate the effect of laser microfriction on the alveolar resorbtion. Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, standart surfaced (TRX, RBT) and laser microfrictioned (TLX, Laser-Lok) 171 dental implants of 87 patients were evaluated due to alveolar bone resorbtion by using opstoperative 1. day, 3. month and 3.year panaromic xrays. Measurements performed by using a computer software at the mesial and distal sides of dental dimplants were analysed statistically. Results: It was revealed that there is no statistically meaningful difference between the TRX and TLX groups due to alveolar bone resorbtion. Conclusion: Laser microfriction technique is used to reduce alveolar bone resorbtion. Although, there are some studies in the literature which are asserting that laser microfriction method is a useful technique to reduce alveolar bone resorbtion, in this study it was cleared that there is no statistical difference between laser microfrictioned and standart surfaces. As a result, longer clinical follows and more subjects are required to evaluate the effectiveness of laser microfrictioning technique.

PDF

___

1. Albrektsson T. On long-term maintenance of the osseointegrated response. Australian Prosthodontic Journal 1993; 7: 15–24.
2. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL. Implant success, survival, and failure: the InternationalCongress of Oral Implantologistsc (ICOI) Pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17(1): 5–15.
3. Esposito M, Hiersch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 527–551.
4. Kitamura E, Stegaroui R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15: 401-412.
5. 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(4): 225- 234.
6. 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.
7. Adell R, Lecholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI, Lindhe J, et al. Marginal tissue reaction at osseointegrated titanium fixtures. A 3 year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986; 15: 39-521.
8. Appleton RS, Nummikoski PV, Pigno MA, Cronin RJ, Chung KH. A radiographic assesment of progressive loading on bone around single osseointegrated implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 161-167.
9. 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.
10. Iorio-Siciliano V, Marenzi G, Blasi A. Influence of platform-switched, laser-microtextured implant on marginal bone level: a 24-Month Case Series Study. Int J Oral Max Impl 2016; 31(1): 162– 166.
11. Saul W, Joshua S, David E, Barry Z, John R. The Effects of Laser Microtextured Collars Upon Crestal Bone Levels of Dental Implants. Implant Dent 2008; 17(2): 217-228.
12. Ericsson I et al. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22(3): 255–261.
13. Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilhan HA. Radiographic evaluation of narrow diameter implants after 5 years of clinical function: retrospective study. J Oral Implantol 2011; Article in press.
14. Tsutsumi T, Kajiya H, Tsuzuki T, Goto KT, Okabe K, et al. Micro-computed tomography for evaluating alveolar bone resorption induced by hyperocclusion. J Prosthodont Res 2018; 62(3): 298-302.
15. Strietzel PF, Karmon B, Lorean A, Fischer PP. Implant prosthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and mandible with immediately loaded implants: preliminary data from a retrospective study, considering time of implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 139-147.
16. Turkyilmaz I. One year clinical outcome of dental implants placed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A case series. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 323-329.
17. Bateli M, Att W, Strub JR. Implant neck configurations for preservation of marginal bone level: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(2): 290–303.
18. Bishti S, Strub JR, Att W. Effect of the implant-abutment interface on peri-implant tissues: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2014; 72(1): 13–25.
19. Koutouzis T, Neiva R, Nonhoff J, Lundgren T. Placement of implants with platform-switched Morse taper connections with the implant-abutment interface at different levels in relation to the alveolar crest: a short-term (1- year) randomized prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28(6): 1553–1563.
20. Iorio-Siciliano V, et al. Soft tissue conditions and marginal bone levels of implants with a laser-microtextured collar: a 5-year, retrospective, controlled study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015; 26(3): 257–262.
21. Renzo G, Mario S, Luca B, Maurizio G, Davide F. The Impact of a Laser-Microtextured Collar on Crestal Bone Level and Clinical Parameters Under Various Placement and Loading Protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29(2): 354-363.
22. Pecora GE, Ceccarelli R, Bonelli M, Alexander H, Ricci JL. Clinical evaluation of laser microtexturing for soft tissueand bone attachment to dental implants. Implant Dent 2009; 18(1): 57–66.