Emrah DİLAVER, Sina UÇKAN, Muazzez SUZEN, Kıvanç Berke AK

Düşük Gonial Açı Posterior Mandibuladaki İmplant EtrafındakiKemik Kaybı Miktarını Etkiler Mi?

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; posterior mandibulaya yerleştirilenimplantların etrafındaki marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonunda, düşükgonial açının bir rolünün olup olmadığının araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada; 36 aylık takibiolan toplam 20 hastada yapılan 46 implant alt çene posteriordişsiz alana yerleştirildi. Sistemik hastalığı olmayan olgularçalışmaya dahil edildi. Gonial açı panaromik röntgen üzerindeölçülüp; 1250 den fazla olan hastalar yüksek gonial açı, 1200 denaz olanlar ise düşük gonial açı grubu olarak sınıflandırıldı. Mezial,distal marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu ve implantın okluzal düzlemleolan açılanması Image J yazılımı (National Institutes of Health;sürüm 1.5i, USA) ile ölçüldü. Yüksek (HGA) ve düşük gonial açıgrupları (LGA) arasındaki farkı karşılaştırmak için bağımsız gruplart testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu (MBL), düşükgonial açı grubunda; mezial taraf için 0.27 ± 0.16 mm ve distaltaraf için 0.27 ± 0.13 mm idi. Yüksek gonial açı grubunda mezialtaraf için 0.77 ± 0.28mm ve distal taraf için 0.71 ± 0.27mm idi.Yüksek ve düşük gonial açı grubu arasında marjinal kemikrezorpsiyonu açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farkbulunmadı. Ancak; yüksek gonial açı grubunda; implantın okluzaldüzlem ile açılanmasının marjinal kemik rezorpsiyonu ile koreleolduğu tespit edildi (p

Does Low Gonial Angle Affect the Amount of Bone Loss Around Implant inThe Posterior Mandible?

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigatewhether there is a role of the low gonial angle on marginal boneresorption around the implants placed in the posterior mandible. Methods: This retrospective study, including 20 patients with 46implants followed 36 months were inserted in the mandibularedentulous posterior area. Patients without systemic diseasewere included in this study. The gonial angle was measured on apanoramic x-ray; Patients with a gonial angle of more than1250were classified as high gonial angle, and those with lessthan 1200 were classified as a low gonial angle group. Mesialand distal marginal bone resorption and implant angulation withthe occlusal plane were measured via Image J software (National Institutes of Health; version 1.5i, USA). Independent samples t test was used to compare measured variables between high andlow gonial angle groups. Results: The mean marginal bone resorption (MBL) was0.27±0.16 mm for the mesial side and 0.27±0.13mm for thedistal side in the LGA group. In the HGA group, MBL was0.77±0.28mm for the mesial side and 0.71±0.27mm for thedistal side. There was no statistical significance between HGAand LGA groups regarding marginal bone resorption. However,implant angulation with the occlusal plane was correlated withmarginal bone resorption in the HGA group. Conclusion: The result of this study is that a low gonial angle isnot directly a risk factor for marginal bone resorption around thedental implant. However, implants should be placedperpendicular to the occlusal plane as possible in the HGAgroup.

PDF

___

1. Park J-H., Kim Y-K., Yun P-Y., Yi Y-J., Yeo I-S., Lee hyo-jung., et al. Analysis of factors affecting crestal bone loss around the implants. J Korean Dent Sci 2009;3:12–7.
2. Hermann JS., Cochran DL., Nummikoski P V., Buser D. Crestal Bone Changes Around Titanium Implants. A Radiographic Evaluation of Unloaded Nonsubmerged and Submerged Implants in the Canine Mandible. J Periodontol 1997; 68:1117-30.
3. Chung, D.M., Oh, T., Lee, J., Misch, C., & Wang, H. Factors affecting late implant bone loss: A retrospective analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 22: 117-26
4. Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L. Crestal bone loss and oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:783-791.
5. Howe MS., Keys W., Richards D. Long-term (10- year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent 2019;84 :9– 21
6. Sadowsky SJ. Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review. Int J Implant Dent 2019; 5:29
7. Johansson A., Omar R., Carlsson GE. Bruxism and prosthetic treatment: A critical review. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:127–36
8. Fu J-H., Hsu Y-T., Wang H-L. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;5 :91-103
9. Van Spronsen PH., Koolstra JH., Van Ginkel FC., Weijs WA., Valk J., Prahl-Andersen B. Relationships between the orientation and moment arms of the human jaw muscles and normal craniofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19:313-28.
10.Ringqvist M. Isometric bite force and its relation to dimensions of the facial skeleton. Acta Odontol Scand 1973;31:35-42
11.Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod 1969; 55:109-23
12.Ahmad R., Abu-Hassan M., Chen J., Li Q., Swain M. The Relationship of Mandibular Morphology with Residual Ridge Resorption Associated with Implant-Retained Overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:573-580
13.Ogawa T., Osato S., Shishido Y., Okada M., Misaki K. Relationships between the gonial angle and mandibular ramus morphology in dentate subjects: A panoramic radiophotometric study. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:203-210
14.Qian J., Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T. Reasons for Marginal Bone Loss around Oral Implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:792-807.
15.Moller E. The chewing apparatus. An electromyographic study of the action of the muscles of mastication and its correlation to facial morphology. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1966;280:1- 229.
16.Takada K., Lowe AA., Freund VK. Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod 1984 ; 86:331-341
17.Mercier P., Lafontant R. Residual alveolar ridge atrophy: Classification and influence of facial morphology. J Prosthet Dent 1979 ;41:90-100
18.Calvo-Guirado JL., López-López PJ., Pérez-Albacete Martínez C., Javed F., Granero-Marín JM., Maté Sánchez de Val JE., et al. Peri-implant bone loss clinical and radiographic evaluation around rough neck and microthread implants: a 5-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:635-643.
19.Ata-Ali J., Peñarrocha-Oltra D., Candel-Marti E., Peñarrocha-Diago M. Oral rehabilitation with tilted dental implants: A metaanalysis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:582-587
20.Monje A., Chan H-L., Suarez F., Galindo-Moreno P., Wang H-L. Marginal bone loss around tilted implants in comparison to straight implants: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1576–83