Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지

An 1 year prospective comparative study evaluating the effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level

임프란트 미세나사선이 주위골 수준변화에 미치는 영향에 대한 1년간의 전향적 비교 연구

  • Shin, Dong-Hwan (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration) ;
  • Cho, Kyoo-Sung (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration) ;
  • Park, Kwang-Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Yongdong Severance Hospital, Yonsei University) ;
  • Moon, Ik-Sang (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
  • 신동환 (연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실, 치주조직재생연구소) ;
  • 조규성 (연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실, 치주조직재생연구소) ;
  • 박광호 (연세대학교 영동세브란스병원 구강악안면외과) ;
  • 문익상 (연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실, 치주조직재생연구소)
  • Published : 2003.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The success of dental implant therapy relies mainly upon the presence and maintenance of bone adjacent to implant. An 1-year prospective study was performed, upon the patients who were diagnosed as having chronic adult periodontitis, and had been treated with dental implant. The purpose of this study was to measure the radiographic bone level changes proximal to Astra Tech Single Tooth Implants (ATST, Astra Tech AB, $M{\"{o}}lndal$, Sweden) with microthread and Astra Tech TiOblast Implant (ATTB) without microthread supporting fixed partial prosthesis. Measurements were used to determine mean marginal bone loss during the first year of loading, 17 subjects with its partial prosthesis supported by 37 implants were followed up for an 1-year period. The marginal bone loss of implants was positively correlated with the retention factor, microthread($Microthread^{TM}$) in crestal area of ATST. The results were as follows. 1. The mean marginal bone loss of ATST was 0.226${\pm}$0.395mm, while ATTB was 0.440${\pm}$0.360mm. There was a statistically significant difference between ATST and ATTB (p<0.05). 2. The mean bone loss of the upper jaw fixtures was 0.269${\pm}$0.265mm for ATST and 0.529${\pm}$0.417mm for ATTB . There was a statistically significant difference between ATST and ATTB (p<0.05). In the lower jaw the corresponding figures were 0.167${\pm}$0.231mm and 0.313${\pm}$0.214mm, respectively. There was no significant difference between ATST and ATTB (p>0.05). 3. The mean bone loss of ATST was lower than that of ATTB at all sites according to bone quality. There was a statistically significant difference between ATST and ATTB at bone quality type III(p <0.05). In conclusion, the mean bone loss of ATST was smaller than that of ATTB . Therefore, the retention factor of crestal area, microthread ($Microthread^{TM}$) was effective to maintenance of marginal bone level around fixture.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson, T., Zarb, G., Worthington, P, Eriksson, R.A. : The long-term efficacy of currently used dantal implants. A review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1: 11-25, 1986
  2. Quirynen, M., Naert, I. & van Steenberghe, D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 3: 104-111, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  3. Lekholm, U., van Steenberghe, D., Hermann, I., Bolender, C., Folmer, T., Gunne, J., Henny, P,. Higuchi, K., Laney, W.R., Linden, U. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 9: 627-635, 1994
  4. Weber, H.P., Crohin, C.C., Fiorellini, J.P. A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 11: 144-153, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.110207.x
  5. Wyatt, C.C.L., Zarb, G.A. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Impl Res 13: 162-168, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130206.x
  6. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekhlm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 106: 721-764, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-6-.x
  7. Eriksson RA, Albrektsson T. The effect of heat on bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42: 701-711, 1984
  8. Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 8: 1-9, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.1997.tb00001.x
  9. Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Motomura Y, Shin K. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on periimplant tissue: A histologicstudy in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13: 677-683, 1998
  10. Miyata T, Kobayashi Y, Araki H, Shin K, Motomura Y. The influence of controlled occlusal overload on periimplant tissue. part 3: A histologic study in monkeys. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15: 425-431, 2000
  11. Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto- gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 68: 186-198, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.2.186
  12. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennstrom J, Lindhe J. The peri-implant hard and soft tissue characteristics at different implant systems. A comparative study in dogs. Clin Oral Implant Res 7: 212-219, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070303.x
  13. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 23: 971-972, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00520.x
  14. Misch CE, Bidez MW. A scientific rationale for dental implant design. In: Misch CE, ed. Contemporary Implant Dentistry, 2nd ed, St. Louis: Mosby, 329-343, 1999
  15. Al Sayyed, A., Deporter, D.A., Pilliar, R.M., Waston. P.A., Pharoah, M., Berhane, K. & Carter, S. Predictable crestal bone remodelling around two porous-coated titanium alloy dental implant designs. Clin Oral Impl Res 5: 131-141, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050303.x
  16. Norton M.R., 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
  17. Palmer R., Palmer P., Smith B. A 5-year prospective study of Astra Single Tooth Implants Clin Oral Impl Res 11: 179-182, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2000.tb00012.x
  18. Batenburg, R.H.K., Meijer,H.J.A., Geraets, W.G.M. & van-der Stelt, P.F Radiographic assessment of changes in marginal bone around endosseous implants supporting mandibular overdendures, Dentomaxillofac Radiology 27: 221-224, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600354
  19. Albrektsson, T., Branernark, P. -I., Hansson, H.A. & Lindstrm, J. Osseointegrated titanium implants: Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone to implant anchorage in a man. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 52: 155-170, 1981 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678108991776
  20. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Biologic width around titanium implants, A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Impl Res 11: 1-11, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011001001.x
  21. Wilke, H.-J. Claes, L. & Steinemann, S. The influence of various titanium surfaces on the interface shear strength between implants and bone. In: Helmke, G., Soltesz, U. & Lee, A.J.C., eds, Clin, Oral Implants Materials. Advances in Biomaterials, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. 9: 309-314, 1990
  22. Guo EX. Mechanical properties of cortical bone and cancellous bone tissue. In. Cowin SC, ed, Bone Mechanics Handbook Bpca Raton, FL: CRC Press 10: 1-23, 2001
  23. Hanssen S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. a biomechanical approach Clin Oral lmpl Res 10: 394-405, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100506.x
  24. Kemppainen P., Eskola S., Ylipaavalniemi P, A comparative prospective clinical study of two single-tooth implants: a preliminary report of 102 implants J Prosth Dent 77: 382-387, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70163-X
  25. Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, Celletti R, Lazzara R. Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 12: 423-432, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120501.x
  26. Wyatt, C.C.L., Bryant, S.R., Avivi-Arber, L., Chaytor, D.V., Zarb, G.A. A computer-assisted measurement technique to assess bone proximal to oral implants on intraoral radiographs. Clin oral Impl Res 12: 225-229, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003225.x
  27. Wennstrom JL., Palmer RM. Survival and successrates with oral endosseous implants: Consensus report of Session C. In. Lang NP, Karring T, Lindhe J, eds, Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Periodontology: Implant dentistry. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 255-259, 1999