مقایسه رادیوگرافیک تحلیل استخوان کرستال اطراف دو نوع سیستم ایمپلنت؛ یک مطالعه‌ی گذشته‌نگر

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران، ایران

2 گروه پروتزهای دندانی، دانشکده دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران، ایران

3 گروه رادیولوژی دهان و فک و صورت، دانشکده دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه و هدف: تحلیل استخوان از رایج‌ترین مشکلات گزارش شده در استخوان‌های اطراف ایمپلنت می‌باشد. عوامل متعددی در این تحلیل استخوان نقش دارند که یکی از آنها خصوصیات میکرواسترکچر و ماکرواسترکچر ایمپلنت است. در مطالعه حاضر، اثر میکرواسترکچر و ماکرواسترکچر ایمپلنت بر روی تحلیل استخوان کرستال مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت.
مواد و روش ها: این مطالعه توصیفی ، بر روی پرونده 115 بیمار دارای 181 ایمپلنت از سال‌های 90 تا 99 در بخش پروتز دانشکده دندان پزشکی شاهد صورت گرفت. بیماران دارای دو نوع ایمپلنت ITI  و DIO مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. رادیوگرافی‌ها بلافاصله پس از کاشت ایمپلنت، در زمان جایگذاری پروتز و همچنین فالوآپ‌های سالیانه به روش موازی گرفته شده بود. تصاویر رادیوگرافی دیجیتالی توسط نرم‌افزار Scanora انجام شد و طول استخوان کرستال محاسبه گردید. برای بررسی روند تحلیل استخوان در طول زمان در انواع ایمپلنت‌ها و بر حسب نوع crown از مدل‌های حاشیه‌ای (Marginal Models) به روش برآوردی GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations) با تابع ربط Identity و ساختار همبستگی Unstructured استفاده شد.
نتایج: ضرایب پایایی اندازه‌گیری متغیرها بزرگ‌تر از 9/0 بود. 139 ایمپلنت  از نوع bone level و 42 ایمپلنت از نوع tissue level بود. تحلیل استخوان در طول زمان برای هر دونوع ایمپلنت معنی‌دار بود (P<0.001). به علاوه اثر متقابل بین زمان و نوع ایمپلنت معنی‌دار بود (P=0.015). میزان تحلیل استخوان در طول زمان در ITI (tissue level) نسبت بهITI (bone level )  و DIO (bone–level) بیشتر بود (P<0.001).
نتیجه‌گیری: تحلیل استخوان اطراف ایمپلنت دو گروه ITI و DIO در بازه زمانی دوساله از لحاظ بالینی قابل قبول هستند. تحلیل استخوان در گروه DIO کمتر از ITI بود. بااین‌حال، این تفاوت مربوط به تأثیر ایمپلنت‌های ITI-tissue level بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Radiographic comparison of crestal bone resorption around two implant systems; a retrospective study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Damghani 1
  • Seyed Mohammad Reza Hakimaneh 2
  • Kamran Kargar 2
  • Shahriar Shahab 3
  • Shojaedin Shayegh 2
1 Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Objective: Bone resorption is one of the most common problems reported in the bones around the implant. Several factors are involved in this bone resorption, one of which is the microstructure and macrostructure properties of the implant. In the present study, the effect of microstructure and macrostructure of implants on crestal bone resorption was evaluated.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was performed on the records of 115 patients with 181 implants between 2011 to 2020 in faculty of dentistry of Shahed University. Patients with two types of implants (ITI and DIO) were evaluated. Parallel peri apical radiographs were taken immediately after implant placement, at prosthesis delivery, as well as annual follow-ups. Digital radiographs were taken by Scanora software and the length of the crestal bone was calculated. To investigate the process of bone resorption over time in all types of implants and according to the type of crown, marginal models were used by GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations) estimation method with the identity correlation function and the unstructured correlation structure.
Results: The reliability coefficients of the variables were greater than 0.9. 139 implants were bone level, and 42 implants were tissue level. Bone resorption was significant over time (P<0.001). In addition, the interaction between time and type of implant was significant (P=0.015). The pattern of resorption was higher over time in ITI (tissue level) than ITI (bone level) and DIO (bone-level) implants (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The bone resorption around the implant is clinically acceptable for both ITI and DIO groups over a two-year period. Bone resorption was lower in the DIO group than in the ITI. However, this difference was related to the ITI-tissue level implants.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dental implants
  • Surface roughness
  • Dental radiography
  • Marginal bone surface
  • Bone resorption

مراجع

  1. Babbush CA, Hahn JA, Krauser JT, Rosenlicht JL. Dental implants: the art and science: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2010.
  2. Gaviria L, Salcido JP, Guda T, Ong JL. Current trends in dental implants. Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2014;40(2):50-60.
  3. Goodman SB, Yao Z, Keeney M, Yang F. The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials 2013;34(13):3174-3183.
  4. Manivasagam G, Dhinasekaran D, Rajamanickam A. Biomedical implants: corrosion and its prevention-a review. Recent Patents on Corrosion Science 2010; 2(1):40-54.
  5. Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza's clinical periodontology: Elsevier health sciences 2011. eBook ISBN: 9780323533232.
  6. Bhatavadekar NB, Hu J, Keys K, Ofek G, Athanasiou KA. Novel application of cytodetachment technology to the analysis of dental implant surfaces. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2011; 26(5):985-990.
  7. Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with osseointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1983;50(1):114-5.
  8. Nandal S, Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H. A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study. National Journal of maxillofacial Surgery 2014;5(2):126.
  9. Bozkaya D, Muftu S, Muftu A. Evaluation of load transfer characteristics of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite elements analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;92(6):523-30.
  10. Elias CN. Factors affecting the success of dental implants. Implant Dentistry: A Rapidly Evolving Practice Rijeka: Intech 2011:319-364.
  11. Watzak G, Zechner W, Ulm C, Tangl S, Tepper G, Watzek G. Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of three types of dental implants following 18 months of occlusal loading: a preliminary study in baboons. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2005;16(4):408-416.
  12. Pourheidary H, Shayegh SSS, Shahab S, Hakimaneh SMR. Radiographic Comparison of Crestal Bone Loss Around Two Implant Systems with Different Surface Roughness: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Islamic Dental Association of IRAN 2019;31(3):162-168.
  13. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Schoolfield JD, Jones AA, Oates TW. A prospective multicenter 5‐year radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels over time in 596 dental implants placed in 192 patients. Journal of Periodontology 2009;80(5):725-733.
  14. Mayhew D, Mendonca V, Murthy B. A review of ASA physical status–historical perspectives and modern developments. Anaesthesia 2019;74(3):373-9.
  15. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 2016;15(2):155-163.
  16. Koodaryan R, Hafezeqoran A. Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BioMed Research International 2016;2016:4987526.
  17. Glibert M, Matthys C, Maat R-J, De Bruyn H, Vervaeke S. A randomized controlled clinical trial assessing initial crestal bone remodeling of implants with a different surface roughness. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2018;20(5):824-828.
  18. Spinato S, Bernardello F, Sassatelli P, Zaffe D. Hybrid and fully‐etched surface implants in periodontally healthy patients: A comparative retrospective study on marginal bone loss. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2017;19(4):663-670.
  19. Zetterqvist L, Feldman S, Rotter B, Vincenzi G, Wennström JL, Chierico A, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized‐controlled 5‐year study of hybrid and fully etched implants for the incidence of peri‐ Journal of Periodontology 2010;81(4):493-501.
  20. Doornewaard R, Christiaens V, De Bruyn H, Jacobsson M, Cosyn J, Vervaeke S, et al. Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2017;19(2):372-399.
  21. Raes M, D'hondt R, Teughels W, Coucke W, Quirynen M. A 5‐year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2018;45(6):711-720.
  22. Oh T-J, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang H-L. The Causes of Early Implant Bone Loss: Myth or Science? Journal of Periodontology. 2002;73(3):322-333.
  23. Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, Suzuki M, Silva NRF, Cardaropoli G, et al. Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 2009;88B(2):579-596.
  24. Al-Nawas B, Hangen U, Duschner H, Krummenauer F, Wagner W. Turned, Machined Versus Double-Etched Dental Implants In Vivo. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2007;9(2):71-78.
  25. Raes M, D'hondt R, Teughels W, Coucke W, Quirynen M. A 5-year randomized clinical trial comparing minimally with moderately rough implants in patients with severe periodontitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2018;45(6):711-720.
  26. Dagorne C, Malet J, Bizouard G, Mora F, Rangé H, Bouchard P. Clinical evaluation of two dental implant macrostructures on peri-implant bone loss: a comparative, retrospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2015;26(3):307-313.
  27. Lee D-W, Choi Y-S, Park K-H, Kim C-S, Moon I-S. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2007;18(4):465-470.
  28. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Schlegel KA, Nkenke E, Eitner S. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel‐screw cylinder machined‐neck implants and rough‐surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009;20(6):550-554.
  29. Alves Gomes É, Adelino Ricardo Barão V, Passos Rocha E, Oliveira de Almeida É, Gonçalves Assunção W. Effect of metal-ceramic or all-ceramic superstructure materials on stress distribution in a single implant-supported prosthesis: three-dimensional finite element analysis. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2011;6(6):1202-1209.
  30. Weigl P, Saarepera K, Hinrikus K, Wu Y, Trimpou G, Lorenz J. Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design. Clinical Oral Investigations 2019;23(3):1067-1075.
  31. Wirring US, Kalra T, Kumar M, Bansal A, Javaid A. Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Restored with Zirconium vis-à-vis Porcelain Fused to Metal: An In Vivo Study. Dental Journal of Advance Studies 2020;8(01):17-21.
  32. Türk A, Ulusoy M, Toksavul S, Güneri P, Koca H. Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2013;40(6):457-63.
دانشور پزشکی
دوره 30، شماره 6 - شماره پیاپی 163
بهمن و اسفند 1401
صفحه 57-69

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار