Research Article
Year 2019,
Volume: 22 Issue: 3, 276 - 282, 09.09.2019
Abstract
References
- Referans1 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 1997;8:161-172
- Referans2 Buser D, Schenk R, Steinemann S, Fiorellini J, Fox C, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902
- Referans3 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-248
- Referans4 Li T, Hu K, Cheng L, Ding Y, Ding Y, Shao J, Kong L. Optimum selection of the dental implant diameter and length in the posterior mandible with poor bone quality–A 3D finite element analysis. Appl Math Model 2011;35:446-456
- Referans5 Javed F, Romanos GE. Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1-10
- Referans6 Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-152
- Referans7 Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-25
- Referans8 Winkler S, Morris HF, Ochi S. Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:22-31
- Referans9 Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar R, Arenovich T. A targeted review of study outcomes with short (< or = 7 mm) endosseous dental implants placed in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 2004;75:798-804
- Referans10 das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, do Prado CJ, Neto AJF. Short implants--an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:86-93
- Referans11 Tan K, Pjetursson, BE, Lang, NP, Chan, ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:654–666
- Referans12 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
- Referans13 Shin SW, Bryant SR, Zarb GA. A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:52-58
- Referans14 Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, Chappuis V, Chen B, De Souza A, Almeida RF, Fickl S, Finelle G, Ganeles J, Gholami H, Hammerle C, Jensen S, Jokstad A, Katsuyama H, Kleinheinz J, Kunavisarut C, Mardas N, Monje A, Papaspyridakos P, Payer M, Schiegnitz E, Smeets R, Stefanini M, Ten Bruggenkate C, Vazouras K, Weber HP, Weingart D, Windisch P. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:69-77
- Referans15 Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:671-680
- Referans16 Kim YK, Kim SG, Yun PY, Hwang JW, Son MK. Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:401-407
- Referans17 Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single restorations in the resorbed posterior mandible supported by 6-mm implants: A 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e465–e471
- Referans18 Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1085-1097
- Referans19 Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part I: A longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:381-389
- Referans20 Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1340-1347
- Referans21 Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667-676
- Referans22 Ling Sun H, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:816–825
- Referans23 Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213
- Referans24 Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, Wang HL. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol 2013;84:1783–1791
- Referans25 Santiago Junior FJ, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:4700–4714
- Referans26 Kido, H, Schulz EE, Kumar A, Lozada J, Saha S. Implant diameter and bone density: effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:163-169
- Referans27 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;14:173-180
- Referans28 Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Narrow- (3.0 mm) versus standard-diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) implants for splinted partial fixed restoration of posterior mandibular and maxillary jaws: A 5-year retrospective cohort study. J Periodontol 2017;88:338-347
- Referans29 Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long- term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8- year follow- up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:76-81
Year 2019,
Volume: 22 Issue: 3, 276 - 282, 09.09.2019
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to
evaluate the length and diameter properties of single dental implants that
posteriorly placed on the mandible and maxilla.
Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety three
posterior single dental implants were
evaluated in this retrospective study by same surgical procedure from 2010 to 2016
years. Demographics of patients, anatomic localizations, implant
characteristics (length and diameter), satisfaction of the patient and implant
loss were recorded. Implants that placed only single in posterior defect site
(premolar or molar) with limited by a natural tooth or a prosthetic restored
tooth on the either side of edentulous region were included. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used
for the satisfaction of the patients. The descriptive statistical analysis
were done.
Results: A
total of 275 patients with 293 dental implants (139 male and 136 female),
ranging from 18 to 72 years (42.13 mean years) were analyzed. The majority of the dental implants were
inserted mandible (156, 53.3%), 137 in maxilla (137, 46.7%). The first molar
region was the most implantation area, inserting with 181 (61.9%) implants, of
which 115 (39.3%) were in mandible, 66 (22.6%) in maxilla. The most frequent
implant diameter placed was the 4 mm (54, 18.4%) and 12 mm (94, 32%) was the
most frequent used implant length. Nine implants were failed and all success
rate was found to be 97%.
Conclusion: According
to these results, single dental
implants in the posterior region can be used safely with high success
rates.
Keywords
References
- Referans1 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 1997;8:161-172
- Referans2 Buser D, Schenk R, Steinemann S, Fiorellini J, Fox C, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902
- Referans3 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-248
- Referans4 Li T, Hu K, Cheng L, Ding Y, Ding Y, Shao J, Kong L. Optimum selection of the dental implant diameter and length in the posterior mandible with poor bone quality–A 3D finite element analysis. Appl Math Model 2011;35:446-456
- Referans5 Javed F, Romanos GE. Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1-10
- Referans6 Isidor F. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:143-152
- Referans7 Himmlova L, Dostalova T, Kacovsky A, Konvickova S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:20-25
- Referans8 Winkler S, Morris HF, Ochi S. Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol 2000;5:22-31
- Referans9 Hagi D, Deporter DA, Pilliar R, Arenovich T. A targeted review of study outcomes with short (< or = 7 mm) endosseous dental implants placed in partially edentulous patients. J Periodontol 2004;75:798-804
- Referans10 das Neves FD, Fones D, Bernardes SR, do Prado CJ, Neto AJF. Short implants--an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:86-93
- Referans11 Tan K, Pjetursson, BE, Lang, NP, Chan, ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:654–666
- Referans12 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
- Referans13 Shin SW, Bryant SR, Zarb GA. A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:52-58
- Referans14 Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, Chappuis V, Chen B, De Souza A, Almeida RF, Fickl S, Finelle G, Ganeles J, Gholami H, Hammerle C, Jensen S, Jokstad A, Katsuyama H, Kleinheinz J, Kunavisarut C, Mardas N, Monje A, Papaspyridakos P, Payer M, Schiegnitz E, Smeets R, Stefanini M, Ten Bruggenkate C, Vazouras K, Weber HP, Weingart D, Windisch P. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:69-77
- Referans15 Villarinho EA, Triches DF, Alonso FR, Mezzomo LAM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RSA. Risk factors for single crowns supported by short (6-mm) implants in the posterior region: A prospective clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:671-680
- Referans16 Kim YK, Kim SG, Yun PY, Hwang JW, Son MK. Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:401-407
- Referans17 Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Single restorations in the resorbed posterior mandible supported by 6-mm implants: A 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e465–e471
- Referans18 Lee SA, Lee CT, Fu MM, Elmisalati W, Chuang SK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of limited vertical height in the posterior region: short implants (5 to 8 mm) vs longer implants (> 8 mm) in vertically augmented sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1085-1097
- Referans19 Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Duyck J, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part I: A longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:381-389
- Referans20 Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol 2006;77:1340-1347
- Referans21 Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, den Hartog L, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of the prognosis of short (<10 mm) dental implants placed in the partially edentulous patient. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:667-676
- Referans22 Ling Sun H, Huang C, Wu YR, Shi B. Failure rates of short dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:816–825
- Referans23 Mezzomo LA, Miller R, Triches D, Alonso F, Shinkai RS. Meta-analysis of single crowns supported by short (<10 mm) implants in the posterior region. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:191–213
- Referans24 Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, Wang HL. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol 2013;84:1783–1791
- Referans25 Santiago Junior FJ, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, de Carvalho PS. Stress analysis in bone tissue around single implants with different diameters and veneering materials: a 3-D finite element study. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:4700–4714
- Referans26 Kido, H, Schulz EE, Kumar A, Lozada J, Saha S. Implant diameter and bone density: effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance. J Oral Implantol 1997;23:163-169
- Referans27 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;14:173-180
- Referans28 Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E, Corinaldesi G. Narrow- (3.0 mm) versus standard-diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) implants for splinted partial fixed restoration of posterior mandibular and maxillary jaws: A 5-year retrospective cohort study. J Periodontol 2017;88:338-347
- Referans29 Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long- term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8- year follow- up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:76-81
There are 29 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | September 9, 2019 |
| Submission Date | March 19, 2019 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2019Volume: 22 Issue: 3 |
Cited By
Accuracy of implant site preparation in robotic navigated dental implant surgery
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13224
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.