Dar çaplı implant destekli diş protezlerinin retrospektif klinik değerlendirilmesi: Erken sonuçlar

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 265 - 269, 15.06.2023

Zeynep Başağaoğlu Demirekin , Yavuz Fındık

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1230451

Abstract

Amaç: Dar çaplı implantlar, dar kemik genişliğine sahip ve dişler arasında sadece dar bir alan bulunduğu klinik durumlarda implant tedavisi planlanmayı sağlar. Maksiller ve mandibular kesici dişler ve birinci küçük azı dişleri gibi dar dişlerin restorasyonunda özellikle avantajlıdırlar.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2018-2019 yılları arasında 21 hasta implant tedavisi ile rehabilite edildi. Toplam 32 implant yerleştirildi (Straumann® Kemik Seviyesi Konik İmplantları, ∅ 2,9 mm). İmplantların sağkalım oranları analiz edildi ve protez komplikasyonları değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: İmplantların kümülatif 36 aylık sağkalım oranı %96.9 idi. Protetik komplikasyonlar esas olarak okluzal vidaların gevşemesiyle sınırlıydı. İmplant abutment kırığı, vida kırığı veya porselende atma gözlenmedi.
Sonuçlar: Sonuçlar, dar implantların tatmin edici tedavi sonuçları sağladığını göstermektedir. Operasyon alanının yeterince geniş olmadığı durumlarda dar implantlar tercih edilebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Dar Çaplı İmplantlar, Sabit Dental Protez, Sağkalım oranı.

Keywords

dar çaplı implantlar, sabit dental protezler, sağkalım oranı

A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation Of Narrow Diameter Implant Supported Dental Prosthesis: Early Results

Abstract

Background: Narrow-diameter implants are planned for specific clinical conditions as locator implants between adjacent teeth with a narrow bone width or with only a narrow area in between. They are especially advantageous when restoring narrow teeth like lateral maxillary and mandibular incisors and first premolars.
Methods: In the period between 2018 and 2019, 21 patients were rehabilitated with implant treatment. A total of 32 implants were placed (The Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants, ∅ 2.9 mm). The survival rates of the implants were analyzed and prosthetic complications were evaluated.
Results: The accumulative 36-month survival rate of the implants was 96.9%. Prosthetic complications were mainly limited to loosening occlusal screws. No implant abutment fractures, screw fractures, or porcelain chipping were observed.
Conclusion: The results show that narrow implants provide satisfactory treatment outcomes. Narrow implants can be preferred in cases, where the dental operation area is not wide enough.
Keywords: Narrow Diameter Implants, Fixed Dental Prosthesis, Survival Rate.

Keywords

narrow diameter implant, fixed dental prothesis, survival rate

References

• 1. Si M, Zhang Y, Li J, He F. Retrospective study on the clinical outcomes of small‐diameter implants supporting fixed prostheses without bone augmentation in the posterior region after 2 to 12 years. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2019;21(3):454-61.
• 2. Barber H. The role of the small diameter implant: A preliminary report on the Mini plant system. Compendium. 1994;15:1390-2.
• 3. Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are small‐diameter implants? A literature review. Clinical oral implants research. 2012;23(5):515-25.
• 4. Trbakovic A, Bongenhielm U, Thor A. A clinical and radiological long‐term follow‐up study of narrow diameter implants in the aesthetic area. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2018;20(4):598-605.
• 5. Vigolo P, Givani A. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth mini-implant restorations: a five-year retrospective study. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2000;84(1):50-4.
• 6. Dos Reis TA, Zancopé K, Karam FK, das Neves FD. Biomechanical behavior of extra-narrow implants after fatigue and pull-out tests. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2019;122(1):54. e1-. e6.
• 7. Papadimitriou DE, Friedland B, Gannam C, Salari S, Gallucci GO. Narrow‐diameter versus standard‐diameter implants and their effect on the need for guided bone regeneration: a virtual three‐dimensional study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2015;17(6):1127-33.
• 8. Olate S, Lyrio MCN, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RWF. Influence of diameter and length of an implant on early dental implant failure. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery. 2010;68(2):414-9.
• 9. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. 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.
• 10. Alghamdi A, Al-Motari K, Sundar C, Jansen JA, Alghamdi H. Dental implants treatment: Clinical indications. Dental Implants and Bone Grafts: Elsevier; 2020. p. 23-42.
• 11. Grahl K, Rich B, Ingel A. A Guided Surgical Technique for the Use of Small Diameter Implants in the Anterior Mandible: Report of a Case. Oral health case Rep. 2016;2(123):2.
• 12. Davarpanah M, Martinez H, TECUCIANU JF, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Small‐diameter implants: indications and contraindications. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2000;12(4):186-94.
• 13. Wu AY-J, Hsu J-T, Chee W, Lin Y-T, Fuh L-J, Huang H-L. Biomechanical evaluation of one-piece and two-piece small-diameter dental implants: In-vitro experimental and three-dimensional finite element analyses. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2016;115(9):794-800.
• 14. 14. Himmlova L, Kácovský A, Konvic̆ková S. Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a finite element analysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2004;91(1):20-5.
• 15. Block MS, Delgado A, Fontenot MG. The effect of diameter and length of hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants on ultimate pullout force in dog alveolar bone. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 1990;48(2):174-8.
• 16. Lee J-H, Frias V, Lee K-W, Wright RF. Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2005;94(4):377-81.
• 17. Comfort M, Chu F, Chai J, Wat P, Chow T. A 5‐year prospective study on small diameter screw‐shaped oral implants. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2005;32(5):341-5.
• 18. Polizzi G, Fabbro S, Furri M, Herrmann I, Squarzoni S. Clinical application of narrow Branemark System implants for single-tooth restorations. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1999;14(4):496-503.
• 19. Jorneus H, Editor Developing the narrow platform. The Nobel Biocare Global Forum; 1996.
• 20. Jackson BJ. Small-Diameter Implant Treatment Plan Revision: Management of Complications. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2016;42(3):295-8.
• 21. Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Oordioli G. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter implants in single-tooth and multiple-implant restorations: a 7-year retrospective study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2004;19(5).