Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk toplumundaki farklı dental implant üstü protetik restorasyon sıklığı ve tiplerinin incelenmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Protetik Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı'nda, dijital kayıt sistemi incelenerek retrospektif bir değerlendirme yapıldı. Hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, dişsiz ve implant uygulanmış bölgeleri, yerine konan eksik diş sayısı ve restorasyon tipi kaydedildi. Elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analizinde tanımlayıcı yöntemler ve Ki-Kare testi kullanıldı. Anlamlılık p< 0,05 düzeyinde değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Çalışmaya toplamda 368 hastaya ait ve 116 hastanın (%31,5) üst çenesine, 179 hastanın (%48,6) alt çenesine ve 73 hastanın (%19,8) hem alt hem üst çenesine yerleştirilen toplam 1143 adet implant dahil edilmiştir. İmplantlar 58 hastada anterior bölgeye (%15,8), 245 hastada posterior bölgeye (%66,6) ve 65 hastada hem anterior hem de posterior bölgeye (%17,7) yerleştirilmiştir. 209 hastanın (%56,8) tek üyeli sabit protez (S-FPDs), 83 hastanın (%22,6) çok üyeli sabit protez (M-FPDs), 44 hastanın (%12) hem S-FPDs hem de M-FPDs ile tedavi edildiği gözlenmiştir. 32 hastada (%8,7) overdenture protez varlığı tespit edilmiştir.Sonuç: Dental implantlarla tedavi edilen hastaların büyük çoğunluğunda protetik restorasyon tipi olarak tek üyeli sabit protez tercih edilmiştir. İmplant kullanılarak en sık tedavi edilen alanlar alt çene ve posterior bölgelerdir.

Dental implantların protetik restorasyon tipleri

Aim: The aim of this study was to evalute the prevalence of different prosthetic restoration types of dental implants in a Turkish subpopulation.Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted by examining the digital patient record system of the faculty. Age, gender, edentulism, implant sites, replaced tooth numbers and restoration types were recorded. Descriptive statistical methods and Chi-square test were used to analyze data. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.Results: There were 368 patients with 1143 implants which were placed to maxilla in 116 patients (31.5%), mandible in 179 patients (48.6%), and maxilla and mandible in 73 patients (19.8%). They were in anterior region in 58 patients (15.8%), posterior region in 245 patients (66.6%), and anterior and posterior region in 65 patients (17.7%). Two hundred and nine patients (56.8%) had single-unit fixed partial dentures (S-FPDs), 83 patients (22.6%) had multi-unit fixed partial dentures (M-FPDs), 44 patients (12%) had both S-FPDs and M-FPDs, and 32 patients (8.7%) had overdentures. Conclusions: The great majority of patients treated with dental implants had S-FPDs. Only 8% of patients had overdentures. The most implant treated sites were mandible and posterior regions.

PDF

___

National Library of Medicine - Medical Subject Head- ings, 2013, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2013/MB_ cgi?mode=&term=Tooth+Loss&field=entry
Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, Davidson T, Gynther G, Jemt T, Lekholm U, Nilner K, Nordenram G, Norlund A, Rohlin M, Tranaeus S, Hultin M. Treatment of adult patients with partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont ;25:568-581.
Vogel R, Smith-Palmer J, Valentine W. Evaluating the health economic implications and cost-effectiveness of dental implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:343-356.
Rohlin M, Nilner K, Davidson T, Gynther G, Hultin M, Jemt T, Lekholm U, Nordenram G, Norlund A, Sunneg- ardh-Gronberg K, Tranaeus S. Treatment of adult patients with edentulous arches: a systematic review. Int J Prost- hodont 2012;25:553-567.
Salinas TJ, Eckert SE. In patients requiring single-tooth replacement, what are the outcomes of implant- as com- pared to tooth-supported restorations? Int J Oral Maxillo- fac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:71-95.
Ozkurt Z, Kazazoğlu E. Treatment modalities of sin- gle-tooth missing in a Turkish subpopulation: Im- plant, fixed partial denture or no restoration. J Dent Sci ;5:183-188.
Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:119-130.
Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Com- parison of survival and complication rates of tooth-sup- ported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-sup- ported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:97-113.
Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. St. Louis: Mosby, Bryant SR, MacDonald-Jankowski D, Kim K. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes for the com- pletely edentulous arch? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants ;22 Suppl:117-139.
Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Pie- hslinger E. Patient preference and satisfaction with im- plant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1560-1568.
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Dun- can WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Meric- ske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus state- ment on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overden- tures as first choice standard of care for edentulous pa- tients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-602.
Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant overdentures: the To- ronto study. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:425-433.
Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, Thomason JM. Patient sat- isfaction with two designs of implant supported remov- able overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1293-1298.
Ozkurt Z, Dikbas I, Kazazoglu E. Predoctoral prostho- dontic clinical curriculum for complete dentures: survey in Turkish dental schools. J Dent Educ 2013;77:93-98.
King NM, Shaw L, Murray JJ. Caries susceptibility of permanent first and second molars in children aged 5-15 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemol 1980;8:151-158.
Han JY, Jung GU. Labial and lingual/palatal bone thickness of maxillary and mandibular anteriors in hu- man cadavers in Koreans. J Periodontal Implant Sci ;41:60-66.
McCaul LK, Jenkins WM, Kay EJ. The reasons for the extraction of various tooth types in Scotland: a 15-year follow up. J Dent 2001;29:401-407.
Glauser R, Ree A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, Hammerle C, Scharer P. Immediate occlusal loading of Branemark implants applied in various jawbone regions: a prospec- tive, 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res ;3:204-213.
Degidi M, Piattelli A, Gehrke P, Felice P, Carinci F. Five year outcome of 111 immediate nonfunctional single restaurations. J Oral Implantol 2006;32:277-285.
Mericske-Stern R: Clinical evaluation of overdenture restorations supported by osseointegrated titanium im- plants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im- plants 1990;5:375-383.
Zarb GA, Schmitt A: The longitudinal clinical effec- tiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toron- to study. Part II: The prosthetic results. J Prosthet Dent ;64:53-61.
Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, et al: A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:513-522.
Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete den- tures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil ;37:143-156.
Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK, et al: Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures. Part I: Retention, stability and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-363.
Celik G, Uludag B.Photoelastic stress analysis of var- ious retention mechanisms on 3-implant-retained man- dibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:229-235.
Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodontics 2000;9:37
Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-lon- gitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent ;27:120-132.
Van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:307-310.