Greftlenmiş ve greftlenmemiş kemikte implant sağkalımının değerlendirilmesi: 5 yıllık takip çalışması

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 135 - 140, 26.01.2024

Abdurrahman Galayene , Levent Ciğerim , Serap Keskin Tunç , Zeynep Dilan Orhan , Mohammad Alsmadı , Nazlı Hilal Kahraman

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1331015

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada doğal kemiğe yerleştirilen dental implantların greftlenmiş kemiğe yerleştirilenlere göre başarı oranlarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma, Ocak 2016-2018 tarihleri arasında dental implant uygulanan ve 5 yıllık takibi olan hasta kayıtlarının retrospektif ve gözlemsel olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Bu veriler, hastanın demografik bilgilerini, implantların sayısı ve bölgelerini, başarısız (fail) implantları, greft yapılıp yapılmadığını ve yapıldıysa greft tipi, tekniği ve iyileşme süresini içermektedir. Çalışmada kullanılan iki implant grubu bulunmaktadır: Grup 1, çalışma grubu, greftlenmiş kemikte yapılan implantlar; Grup 2, kontrol grubu, greftlenmemiş kemikte yapılan implantlar.
Bulgular: Çalışma, 890 hastadan oluşan bir kohortta 3170 implantın yerleştirilmesini içermektedir. Çalışma bulguları, implantların çoğunluğunun (%88'inin; n=2791) greftleme prosedürlerine tabi tutulmadığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, implantların genel sağkalım oranının %98,8 olduğu kaydedilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz, implant sağkalım oranının greftlenmemiş kemikte greftlenmiş kemiğe göre anlamlı derecede yüksek olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır (p=0.039; p<0.05).
Sonuç: İmplantların sağkalım oranı, greftlenmemiş kemikte greftlenmiş kemiğe kıyasla nispeten daha yüksekti. Bulgular, implant cerrahisi öncesinde veya sırasında greftleme yaparak kemik genişliğini artırmanın, 5 yıllık bir takip süresinden sonra %97,62'lik implant sağkalım oranınından görüldüğü üzere, kemik genişliğinin yetersiz olduğu durumlar için geçerli bir prosedür olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Fail implant, greftlenmiş kemik, implant sağkalımı

Evaluation of implant survival in grafted and ungrafted bone: a 5-year follow-up study

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the success rates of dental implants placed in native bone to those placed in grafted bone.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent dental implant procedures between 2016 and 2018 and who had a 5-year follow-up. These data included the patient's demographic information, the number and regions of implants, failed implants, grafting type, technique and healing time. Two groups were used: Group 1, the study group, consists of implants made in the grafted bone, and Group 2, the control group, consists of implants made in the ungrafted bone.
Results: The placement of 3170 implants was in 890 patients. The findings indicate that a majority of the implants, specifically 88% (n=2791), were not subjected to grafting procedures. However, the survival rate of the implants was 98.8%. The rate of implant survival was higher in the ungrafted bone compared to the grafted bone (p=0.039; p<0.05).
Conclusion: The survival rate of implants was higher in ungrafted bone. The findings indicate that augmenting of the width of the grafted bone before or during implant surgery is a viable procedure, as evidenced by the implant survival rate of 97.62% .

Keywords

failed implant, grafted bone, implant survival

References

• Referans1. Tunçdemir A, Özcan E. İmplant destekli sabit ve hareketli protetik restorasyonlar. MKÜ Tıp Dergisi 2011;2:6.
• Referans2. Sartoretto SC, Shibli JA, Javid K, Cotrim K, Canabarro A, Louro RS, et al. Comparing the long-term success rates of tooth preservation and dental ımplants: A critical review. J Funct Biomater 2023;14:142.
• Referans3. Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Ali S, Faggion CM, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;4:63–9.
• Referans4. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard tissue alterations following. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820–8.
• Referans5. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:136-59.
• Referans6. Elangovan S. Dental implant survival in the bone augmented by direct sinus lift is comparable to implants placed in the native bone. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2020;20:101410.
• Referans7. Jensen AT, Jensen SS, Worsaae N. Complications related to bone augmentation procedures of localized defects in the alveolar ridge. A retrospective clinical study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;20:115–22.
• Referans8. Buser D, Dula K, Hirt HP, Schenk RK. Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:420–32.
• Referans9. Lekholm U, Wannfors K, Isaksson S, Adielsson B. Oral implants in combination with bone grafts. A 3-year retrospective multicenter study using the Brånemark implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:181–7.
• Referans10. Schliephake H, Schmelzeisen R, Husstedt H, Schmidt- Wondera LU. Comparison of the late results of mandibular reconstruction using nonvascularized or vascularized grafts and dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:944–51.
• Referans11. Laverty DP, Kelly R, Addison O. Survival of dental implants placed in autogenous bone grafts and bone flaps in head and neck oncology patients: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent 2018;4:19.
• Referans12. Nevins M, Mellonig JT, Clem DS, Reiser GM, Buser DA. Implants in regenerated bone: Long-term survival. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:35–45.
• Referans13. Dahlin C, Lekholm U, Linde A. Membrane-induced bone augmentation at titanium implants. A report on ten fixtures followed from 1 to 3 years after loading. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991;4:273–81.
• Referans14. Buser D, Ingimarsson S, Dula K, Lussi A, Hirt HP, Belser UC. Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: a 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2002;22:109-17.
• Referans15. Brunel G, Brocard D, Duffort JF, Jacquet E, Justumus P, Simonet T, et al. Bioabsorbable materials for guided bone regeneration prior to implant placement and 7-year follow-up: report of 14 cases. J Periodontol 2001;72:257-64.
• Referans16. Konstantinidis I, Kumar T, Kher U, Stanitsas PD, Hinrichs JE, Kotsakis GA. Clinical results of implant placement in resorbed ridges using simultaneous guided bone regeneration: a multicenter case series. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:553–9.
• Referans17. Bazrafshan N, Darby I. Retrospective success and survival rates of dental implants placed with simultaneous bone augmentation in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:768–73.
• Referans18. Wennström JL, Ekestubbe A, Grondahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:567–74.
• Referans19. Bornstein MM, Schmid B, Belser UC, Lussi A, Buser D. Early loading of non-submerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. 5-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:631–8.
• Referans20. Lozada JL, Emanuelli S, James RA, Boskovic M, Lindsted K. Root- form implants placed in subantral grafted sites. J Calif Dent Assoc 1993;1:31–5.
• Referans21. Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris G, Sbordone C, Guidetti F. Implant survival in maxillary and mandibular osseous onlay grafts and native bone: A 3-year clinical and computerized tomographic follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;4:695–703.
• Referans22. Huynh-Ba G, Friedberg JR, Vogiatzi D, Ioannidou E. Implant failure predictors in the posterior maxilla: A retrospective study of 273 consecutive implants. J Periodontol 2008;12:2256–61.
• Referans23. Sesma N, Pannuti C, Cardaropoli G. Retrospective clinical study of 988 dual acid-etched implants placed in grafted and native bone for single-tooth replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;5:1243–8.