open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
Purpose : The aim of this study was to evaluate the surviva rate of sintered porous-surfaced implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles, in relation to implant length and diameter, crown-to-implant ratio, and types of prostheses, for a maximum of eight years of functioning. Material and Methods : The study group consisted of 43 partially edentulous patients who visited Catholic University Hospital of Daegu and one private dental clinic. A total of 122 sintered porous-surfaced implants -- Endopore (Innova Life Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) -- were placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles. Two diameter sizes (4.1㎜ and 5.0㎜) and four lengths (5.0㎜, 7.0㎜, 9.0㎜, and 12.0㎜) were used. One hundred and three implants were splinted and 21 implants were nonsplinted. The survival rates of the implants in relation to length, diameter, crown-to-implant ratio, and types of prostheses were investigated. Statistical data were analyzed using SPSS Win.Ver 14.0 software with the Chi-square test. Results : The survival rate of the 4.1mm diameter implants was 100% and 91.2% for the 5.0㎜ diameter implants. The survival rates of the implants of differing diameters were found to be statistically different (p=0.005). The survival rates of both the 5.0㎜ and 7.0㎜ length implants were 100%. The survival rate of the 9.0㎜ length implants was 97.9% and for the 12.0㎜ length implants was 95.1%. There was no statistical difference in survival rates for the differing lengths of implants. Of the 103 prostheses that were splinted, the survival rate was 98.0%. The survival rate of splinted prostheses was higher than that of the non-splinted prostheses, but was found to be not statistically different. There were no failed cases when the crown-to-implant ratio was under 1.0. When the crown-to-implant ratio was between 1.0 and 1.5, the failure rate of the implants was 6.7%. No failure was recorded with the ratio range of 1.5 to 2.0. Relative to the crown-to-implant ratio of 1.0, the failure rates were statistically different (p=0.048). Discussion and Conclusion : The cumulative survival rate of the porous-surfaced implants placed in the edentulous posterior mandibles was 97.5%. Short porous-surfaced implants showed satisfactory results after a maximum of nine years of functioning in the edentulous posterior mandibles.
1. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D：The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: Short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:169-178.
2. Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, et al：Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33-42.
3. Weng D, Jacobson Z, Tarnow D, H?rzeler MB, Faehn O, Sanavi F, Barkvoll P, Stach RM. A prospective multicenter clinical trial of 3i machined-surface implants: results after 6 years of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 May-Jun;18(3):417-423.
4. Jaffin RA. Berman CL. The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J Periodontol. 1991:62(1):2-4.
5. Albrektsson T. Zarb GA. 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(1):11-25.
6. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rao W, Rebaudi A. Bone-implant contact and bone quality: Evaluation of expected and actual bone contact on machined and osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002;22:535-545.
7. Cook SD, Kay JF, Thomas KA, Jarcho M：Interface mechanics and histology of titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated titanium for dental implant applications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:15-22.
8. Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF： Evaluation of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45:601-607.
9. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants. An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8.
10. Cochran DL, Buser D, Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM. Bernard JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acidetched(SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:144-153.
11. Levy D, Deporter DA, Watson PA, Pilliar RM. Periodontal parameters around porous-coated dental implants after 3 to 4 years supporting overdentures. J Clin Periodontol. 1996 Jun;23(6):517-522.
12. Pilliar RM. Overview of surface variability of metallic endosseous dental implants: textured and porous surface-structured designs. Implant Dent. 1998;7(4):305-314.
13. Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Levy D, Todescan R. Five- to six-year results of a prospective clinical trial using the Endopore dental implant and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999;10(2):95-102.
14. Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):66-75.
15. Nevins M, Langer B. The successful application of osseointegrated implants to the posterior jaw:A longterm retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:151-161
16. Scurria MS, Morgan ZV 4th, Guckes AD, Li S, Koch G. Prognostic variables associated with implant failure: a retrospective effectiveness study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(3):400-406.
17. Engquist B, Bergendal T, Kallus T, Linden U. A retrospective multicenter evaluation of osseointegrated implants supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3(2):129-134.
18. Johns RB, Jemt T, Heath MR, Hutton JE, McKenna S, McNamara DC, van Steenberghe D, Taylor R, Watson RM, Herrmann I. multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7(4):513-522.
19. Bahat O. Treatment planning and placement of implants in the posterior maxillae: report of 732 consecutive Nobelpharma implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(2):151-161.
20. Haas R, Polak C, Fürhauser R, Mailath-Pokorny G, Dörtbudak O, Watzek G. A long-term follow-up of 76 Bränemark single-tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Feb;13(1):38-43.
21. Artzi Z, Carmeli G, Kozlovsky A. A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated implants in 5-10 years in function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Feb;17(1):85-93.
22. Garlini G, Bianchi C, Chierichetti V, Sigurtá D, Maiorana C, Santoro F. Retrospective clinical study of Osseotite implants: zero- to 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Jul-Aug;18(4):589-593.
23. Romeo E, Lops D, Amorfini L, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3-mm) implants followed for 1-7 years: a longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Apr;17(2):139-148.
24. Deporter D, Watson P, Pharoah M, Todescan R, Tomlinson G. Ten-year results of a prospective study using porous-surfaced dental implants and a mandibular overdenture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(4):183-189.
25. Deporter D, Pilliar RM, Todescan R, Watson P, Pharoah M. Managing the posterior mandible of partially edentulous patients with short, porous-surfaced dental implants: early data from a clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 ;16(5):653-658.
26. Van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, Folmer T, Henry P, Herrmann I, Higuchi K, Laney W, Linden U, Astrand P. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: a prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5(3):272-281.
27. Friberg B, Gröndahl K, Lekholm U, Brönemark PI. Long-term follow-up of severely atrophic edentulous mandibles reconstructed with short Brönemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(4):184-189.
28. Deporter D, Todescan R, Caudry S. Simplifying management of the posterior maxilla using short, porous-surfaced dental implants and simultaneous indirect sinus elevation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20(5):476-485.
29. Deporter D, Ogiso B, Sohn DS, Ruljancich K, Pharoah M. Ultrashort sintered porous-surfaced dental implants used to replace posterior teeth. J Periodontol. 2008;79(7):1280-1286.
30. 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.
31. Deporter DA, Watson PA, Pilliar RM, Chipman ML, Valiquette N. A histological comparison in the dog of porous-coated vs. threaded dental implants. J Dent Res. 1990;69(5):1138-1145.
32. Deporter DA, Watson PA, Pilliar RM, Pharoah M, Smith DC, Chipman M, Locker D, Rydall A. A prospective clinical study in humans of an endosseous dental implant partially covered with a powder-sintered porous coating: 3- to 4-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(1):87-95.
33. Ivanoff CJ, Gröndahl K, Sennerby L, Bergström C, Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Mar-Apr;14(2):173-180.