The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Considerations in implant crestal module to preserve peri-implant tissue

임플란트 주위 조직 보존을 위한 임플란트 경부의 디자인에 관한 고찰

  • Kim, Hong-Jun (Department of Prodthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Jee-Hwan (Department of Prodthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Tae (Department of Prodthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Hoon (Department of Prodthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Young-Bum (Department of Prodthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • 김홍준 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김지환 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김성태 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이재훈 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 박영범 (연세대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2011.07.09
  • Accepted : 2011.10.24
  • Published : 2011.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The peri-implant soft tissue is remodeled by the initial marginal bone resorption affecting the prognosis and esthetic result of treatment. Thus various designs on implant neck design are studied to preserve peri-implant bone. The purpose of this study is to review on the causes of initial marginal bone resorption, the configuration of peri-implant soft tissue, and the implant crestal module favorable in preserving peri-implant tissue. Materials and methods: The studies on the causes of initial marginal bone resorption and the implant crestal modules are researched and reviewed using Pubmed database. The implant crestal modules including one piece and two-piece implant, internal and external hex abutment, taper and butt joint connection, scalloped design abutment, and platform switching concept are reviewed. Results: A number of clinical and experimental studies preferred one piece implant to two-piece in preserving initial peri-implant tissue. For two piece implants, internal hex abutment and taper joint connection appear more favorable than external hex abutment and butt joint connection relatively. Controversial issues still exist on scalloped design requiring more studies on it. Although the rationale is not certain, the concept of platform switching seems favorable in preserving initial peri-implant tissue based on clinical and experimental studies. Conclusion: Each implant crestal module contains its own advantages and disadvantages with various controversial issues. In the aspect of preservation of initial peri-implant tissue, however, one-piece implant seems beneficial. In cases when two-piece implant is more appropriate due to prosthodontic concerns or any other problems, the application of platform switching concept, internal connection abutment, and taper joint connection may be favorable for the preservation of peri-implant tissues.

연구 목적: 임플란트 식립 후 변연골 흡수에 따라 임플란트 주위 연조직이 재구성되며, 이에 따라 치료의 예후 및 심미성 등에 영향을 주게 된다. 그러므로 임플란트 경부 주위 골조직 보존을 위한 임플란트 경부에 다양한 디자인이 연구되고 있다. 본 고찰의 목적은 초기 변연골 흡수의 원인과 이에 따른 임플란트 주위의 연조직 변화에 대해 고찰하고, 어떠한 임플란트 경부 디자인이 임플란트 주위 조직의 보존에 유리한 지 알아보고자 한다. 연구 재료 및 방법: Pubmed database에서 임플란트 초기 변연골 흡수의 원인과 관련된 논문과 임플란트 경부의 여러 디자인에 관한 논문을 검색하여 분석하였다. 임플란트 경부 디자인은 one piece implant, two piece implant, internal hex abutment, external hex abutment, taper joint connection, butt joint connection, scalloped design abutment, platform switching concept에 관해 검토하였다. 결과: 초기의 임플란트 주위 조직 보존에 대하여 one piece implant가 two piece implant보다 유리한 것으로 여러 임상적, 실험적 연구가 있다. Two piece implant에서는 internal hex abutment가 external hex abutment보다, taper joint connection가 butt joint connection보다 유리할 것으로 보여진다. Scalloped design abutment에 대해서는 논쟁의 여지가 있어 더 많은 연구가 필요할 것으로 판단된다. Platform switching concept은 그 원인이 명확히 밝혀지지는 않았으나 임상적, 실험적으로 초기 임플란트 주위 조직 보존에 대해 유리한 것으로 판단된다. 결론: 임플란트 경부의 디자인마다 각각의 장단점이 있고 추가적인 연구가 더 필요한 제한이 있지만 현재까지의 선행 연구들을 분석 종합해 보면 초기 임플란트 주위 조직 보존을 고려한다면 가능한 경우 one piece implant가 유리할 것으로 판단되며, 보철적인 문제나 다른 이유로 인하여 two piece implant를 고려할 경우 platform switching concept, internal connection abutment, taper joint connection을 이용하는 것이 임플란트 주위 조직 보존에 좀더 유리할 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.
  2. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo- Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059
  3. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:391-401.
  4. Wiskott HW, Belser UC. Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:429-44. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100601.x
  5. Kitamura E, Stegaroiu R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Biomechanical aspects of marginal bone resorption around osseointegrated implants: considerations based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:401-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01022.x
  6. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Br$\aa$nemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030302.x
  7. Ericsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J, Klinge B. Different types of inflammatory reactions in peri-implant soft tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:255-61.
  8. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00520.x
  9. Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72: 1372-83. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1372
  10. Misch CE, Dietsh-Misch F, Hoar J, Beck G, Hazen R, Misch CM. A bone quality-based implant system: first year of prosthetic loading. J Oral Implantol 1999;25:185-97. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1999)025<0185:ABQISF>2.3.CO;2
  11. Isidor F. Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.1997.tb00001.x
  12. Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993;4:158-61. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040307.x
  13. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, Dahlen G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Bra􀆆nemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:90-5. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070201.x
  14. Lindhe J, Berglundh T, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B, Marinello C. Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:9-16. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030102.x
  15. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020206.x
  16. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennstro¨m J, Lindhe J. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7:212-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070303.x
  17. 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 1997;68:186-98. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.2.186
  18. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Marinello C, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B. Soft tissue reaction to de novo plaque formation on implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030101.x
  19. Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T, Marinello CP, Lindhe J. Experimental peri-implant mucositis in man. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:517-23. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028006517.x
  20. Bullon P, Fioroni M, Goteri G, Rubini C, Battino M. Immunohistochemical analysis of soft tissues in implants with healthy and peri-implantitis condition, and aggressive periodontitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01072.x
  21. Iacono VJ; Committee on Research, Science and Therapy, the American Academy of Periodontology. Dental implants in periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2000;71:1934-42. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.12.1934
  22. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:1-8.
  23. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71:1412-24. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1412
  24. Heijdenrijk K, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Stegenga B, van der Reijden WA. Feasibility and influence of the microgap of two implants placed in a non-submerged procedure: a five-year followup clinical trial. J Periodontol 2006;77:1051-60. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050342
  25. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, Buser D, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003;82:232-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200316
  26. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:75-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01545.x
  27. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:516-20.
  28. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implantabutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:519-26.
  29. Pieri F, Aldini NN, Marchetti C, Corinaldesi G. Influence of implant- abutment interface design on bone and soft tissue levels around immediately placed and restored single-tooth implants: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26: 169-78.
  30. Wohrle PS. Nobel Perfect esthetic scalloped implant: rationale for a new design. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:64-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00017.x
  31. McAllister BS. Scalloped implant designs enhance interproximal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2007;27:9-15.
  32. Nowzari H, Chee W, Yi K, Pak M, Chung WH, Rich S. Scalloped dental implants: a retrospective analysis of radiographic and clinical outcomes of 17 NobelPerfect implants in 6 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006;8:1-10. https://doi.org/10.2310/j.6480.2005.00034.x
  33. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:527-40.
  34. Maeda Y, Miura J, Taki I, Sogo M. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching: is there any biomechanical rationale? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:581-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01398.x
  35. Lopez-Marl L, Calvo-Guirado JL, Martln-Castellote B, Gomez- Moreno G, Lopez-Marl M. Implant platform switching concept: an updated review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14: e450-4.
  36. Vigolo P, Givani A. Platform-switched restorations on wide-diameter implants: a 5-year clinical prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:103-9.
  37. Wagenberg B, Froum SJ. Prospective study of 94 platform-switched implants observed from 1992 to 2006. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:9-17.
  38. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546
  39. Tarnow D, Elian N, Fletcher P, Froum S, Magner A, Cho SC, Salama M, Salama H, Garber DA. Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol 2003;74:1785-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.12.1785
  40. Hermann F, Lerner H, Palti A. Factors influencing the preservation of the periimplant marginal bone. Implant Dent 2007;16:165-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318065aa81
  41. Calvo Guirado JL, Saez Yuguero MR, Pardo Zamora G, Munnoz Barrio E. Immediate provisionalization on a new implant design for esthetic restoration and preserving crestal bone. Implant Dent 2007;16:155-64. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31805816c9