Retrospective Study of GS II Implant(Osstem) with an Internal Connection with Microthreads

Micro thread를 포함한 GSII RBM임플란트(Osstem)의 후향적 임상연구

  • Chee, Young-Deok (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Hwan (Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Oh, Sang-Chun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 지영덕 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 이재환 (원광대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 오상천 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2009.11.15
  • Accepted : 2009.12.25
  • Published : 2009.12.31

Abstract

Since the introduction of the concept of osseointegration in dental implants, high long-term success rates have been achieved and accepted as viable option for the treatment of fully and partially edentulous patients. Although the use of domestic implants have increased dramatically, there are few studies on domestic implants with clinical and objective long-term data. 96 endosseous implants placed in 31 patients at Wonkwang University Sanbon Dental Hospital were examined to determine the effect of various factors on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss, through clinical and radiographic results. The design of endosseous implant used to this study is straight with the microthread.(GS II RBM Fixture) 1. 3 fixtures were lost, resulting in 96.9% cumulative survival rate. 2. Survival rate in fifties was significantly lower (93.6%) and no significant difference in marginal bone loss was found according to gender. 3. Survival rates were 95.6% in the maxillary molar area and 97.3% in the mandible molar area. 4. No significant difference in survival rate was found according to presence of bone grafts, type of prostheses, implant position, and length and diameter of implant. 5. A factor influencing marginal bone loss was presence of type of prostheses, while facters such a length, diameter of fixture and bone grafts had no statistically significant effect on crestal bone loss. This study indicates the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods.

골유착성 임플란트가 소개된 이후로 부분 및 무치악 부위에서 사용되어 높은 성공률과 함께 예지성 있는 결과를 보여주는 치료방법으로 인정받고 있다. 그러나 국내에서 개발된 임플란트에 대해서는 임상적이고 객관적인 연구 자료가 불충분하다. 본 연구에서는 31명의 환자에게서 임플란트 경부에 미세나사를 지닌 임플란트 식립 후 평균 21개월의 기간 동안 임플란트의 생존율에 관한 조사를 시행하였고 부하가 가해지는 시점을 기준으로 12개월 간 변연골의 변화를 파노라마사진을 이용하여 측정 관찰하여 다음의 결과를 도출하였다. 총 96개의 임플란트에서 3개의 임플란트가 실패하여 96.9%의 생존율을 보였다. 50대 환자에서 85.7%로 가장 작은 생존율을 보였으며 성별 및 연령에 따른 생존율 및 변연골 흡수량에 대한 통계적 유의성은 존재하지 않았다. 상악에서는 95.7% 하악에서는 100%의 생존율을 보였다. 골이식 여부, 보철물의 종류, 매식체의 길이 및 직경에 따른 생존율의 차이는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 기능 부하 후 임플란트 변연골 흡수량은 단일 금관 보철물이 연결 고정 보철물에 비해 증가된 양상을 보였으나 임플란트의 직경, 길이, 골이식의 유무, 식립위치에 의해서는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 이 연구를 통해 경부에 미세나사를 지닌 임플란트 식립 후에 임플란트 변연골 흡수량은 비교적 적게 일어났으며 또한 안정적으로 유지되는 것이 관찰될 수 있었고 이에 따른 장기적인 추적관찰이 필요할 것으로 사료된다.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 원광대학교

References

  1. 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 1:11-25, 1986
  2. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B et al. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures. A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:39-52, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(86)80010-2
  3. Jemt T, Lekhom U, Groundahl K. A 3-Year follow-up study of early single implant restoration ad modum Br${\aa}$nemark. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 10:341-349, 1990
  4. Engquist B, Astrand P, Dahlgren S, Engquist E, Feldmann H, Grondahl K. Marginal bone reaction to oral implants: a prospective comparative study of Astra Tech and Branemark System implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:30-37, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130103.x
  5. van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I :'Survival and success rates with oral endosseous implants. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Periodontology'. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co 242, 1999
  6. Buser D, Mericske-stern R, Bernard JP et al : 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 Jun 8(3) : 161, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
  7. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM et al : The use of reduced healing times on ITI$^{\circledR}$ implants with a sandblasted and etched (SLA) surface : early results from clinical trials on ITI$^{\circledR}$ SLA implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 13 : 144, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  8. Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:394–405, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100506.x
  9. North MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:91-99, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090204.x
  10. Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:173-179, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080303.x
  11. Abrahammson I, Berglundh T. Tissue Characteristics at Microthreaded Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:107-113, 2006
  12. Robert Haas, Nikoletta Mensdorff-Poui : Survival of 1,920 IMZ implants followed for up to 100 months. Int J Oral maxillofacial implants Vol.11, No.5 581, 1996
  13. Kim JS, Chang HH et al : Preprothetic stage dental implant failure. J KAOMS 2 : 178, 2001
  14. Peñarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchís JM et al. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:861-867, 2004
  15. Wyatt CCL, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:204- 211, 1998
  16. Hertel R, Kalk W. Influence of the dimensions of implant super- structure on peri implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont 6:18, 1993
  17. Shin SW, Ross Bryant, Zarb G et al : A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthet Dent 17 : 52, 2004
  18. Naert I, Koutsikakis G, Quirynern M, Duyck J, van Steenberge D, Jacobs R. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. part 2 ; alongitudinal radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:390-5 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130407.x
  19. Jensen OT : The sinus bone graft, 2nd ed. Quintessence Publishing Co. 63, 2006
  20. Tong DC, Rioux K, Drangsholt M et al : A review of survival rates for implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses using meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13 : 175, 1998
  21. Zitzmann NU, Sxharer P, Marinello CP. Long-term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: A 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implnats 16:355-366, 2001
  22. Hardt CRE, Grodahl K, Lekholm U, Wennstrom JL. Outcome of implant therapy in relation to experienced loss of periodontal bone support. A retrospective 5-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:488-494, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130507.x