Tayfun GÜNBAY, Bahar SEZER, Erhan ÇÖMLEKOĞLU, Aylin SİPAHİ ÇALIŞ, Banu ÖZVERİ KOYUNCU

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

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.

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

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.

PDF

___

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.
8. Schnitman PA, Shulman LB. Recommendations of the consensus development conference on dental implants. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;98: 373–377.
9. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:567–572.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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; Mar-Apr;22(2):226-234.
15. van Steenberghe D, De Mars G, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, Naert I. A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems.Clin Oral Implants Res.2000; Jun;11(3):202-209.
16. Cochran DL.A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol.1999; Dec; 70(12):1523-1539.
17. Li DH, Liu BL, Zou JC, Xu KW. Improvement of osseointegration of titanium dental implants by a modified sandblasting surface treatment: an in vivo interfacial biomechanics study.Implant Dent.1999;8(3):289-294.
18. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Persson LG, Lindhe J. Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects. An experimental study in the dog.J Clin Periodontol. 2005; May; 32(5):448-455.
19. Rosenlicht JL. Swiss Plus Implant System, Part 1: Surgical aspects and intersystem comparisons. Implant Dent.2002;11(2):144-153.
20. Davarpanah M, Martinez H, Etienne D, Zabalegui I, Mattout P, Chiche F, Michel JF. A prospective multicenter evaluation of 1,583 3i implants: 1- to 5- year data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;NovDec;17(6):820-828.
21. Trisi P, Rao W. Bone classification: clinicalhistomorphometric comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999; Feb;10(1):1-7.
22. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, Van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34:610–617.
23. Koldsland AA, Scheie AM. Prevalence of implant loss and the influence of associated factors, J Periodontol 2009;80:1069–1075.
24. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology.Eur J Oral Sci.1998; Feb;106(1):527-551.
25. Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature.Clin Oral Implants Res.2002; Feb;13(1):1- 19.
26.Gokcen-Rohlig B, Yaltirik M, Ozer S, Tuncer E D, Evlioglu G. Survival and Success of ITI Implants and Prostheses: Retrospective Study of Cases with 5- Year Follow-Up. Eur J Dent 2009; January; 3(1): 42– 49.
27. Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S, Grippaudo G.A long-term follow-up study of non-submerged ITI implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Part I: Ten-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 1286 implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; Jun;13(3):260-273.
28. Jemt T, Johansson J. Implant treatment in the edentulous maxillae: a 15-year follow-up study on 76 consecutive patients provided with fixed prostheses.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2006;8(2):61-69.
29. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;Jul-Aug;22(4):639-644.
30. Chiapasco M.Early and immediate restoration and loading of implants in completely edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:76-91.
31. Degidi M, Iezzi G, Perrotti V, Piattelli A. Comparative Analysis of Immediate Functional Loading and Immediate Nonfunctional Loading to Traditional Healing Periods: A 5-Year Follow-Up of 550 Dental Implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2009; Dec;11(4):257 - 266.
32. Misch E, Carl & Degidi, Marco & E. Misch, Carl & Degidi, Marco. Five‐Year Prospective Study of Immediate/Early Loading of Fixed Prostheses in Completely Edentulous Jaws with a Bone Quality‐ Based Implant System. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2003; 5:17-19.
33. Misch CE, Dietsh-Misch F, Hoar J, Beck G, Hazen R, Misch CM. A bone quality-based implant system: first year of prosthetic loading.J Oral Implantol.1999; 25(3):185-197.
34. Bass SL, Triplett RG. The effects of preoperative resorption and jaw anatomy on implant success. A report of 303 cases.Clin Oral Implants Res.1991; Oct-Dec;2(4):193-198.
35. Jaffin RA, Berman CL.The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: a 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991; Jan; 62(1):2-4.
36. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP.Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8- year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. Jun1997;8(3):161-172.