대한치과의사협회지 (The Journal of the Korean dental association)

  • 제56권9호
  • /
  • Pages.462-478
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 0376-4672(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-7961(eISSN)
대한치과의사협회 (The Korean Dental Association)
권호 표지

임플란트와 상부보철물의 임상적/실험적 부적합 평가에 관한 문헌고찰

A literature review on clinical/ laboratory misfit evaluation on implant-prosthesis

  • 김종회 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 조웅래 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 고경호 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 허윤혁 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 박찬진 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소) ;
  • 조리라 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실 및 구강과학연구소)
  • Kim, Jong-Hoi (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University) ;
  • Cho, Woong-Rae (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University) ;
  • Ko, Kyung-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University) ;
  • Huh, Yoon-Hyuk (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University) ;
  • Park, Chan-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University) ;
  • Cho, Lee-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics, Schoolof Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University)
  • 투고 : 2018.05.17
  • 심사 : 2018.07.11
  • 발행 : 2018.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

임플란트와 지대주 간에 허용가능한 적합도를 넘는 부적합을 발견하고 이에 대처하는 것은 중요한 과제이다. 부적합을 임상에서 평가하고 발견하는 방법은 대부분 부적합의 정성적 평가에 치중하고 있으며 술자의 숙련도에 의존하고 있어 정확한 평가방법이라고 하기는 어렵다. 부적합의 정도를 판단하고 원인을 실험적으로 분석하는 방법 중 본 문헌고찰에서는 광탄성 분석법, 유한요소분석법, 스트레인게이지, 미생물 균체 분석 등 조건을 모형화하여 분석하는 모형화법과 사진 측량, 삼차원 좌표 측정, 현미경분석 및 방사선분석을 통해 부적합의 정도를 정밀하게 측정하는 수치법을 각각 설명하고 그 장단점 및 적용의 한계를 분석하였다. 지금까지 살펴본 실험실 부적합 평가 방법들을 장, 단점 및 정확도와 재현성을 기준으로 표로 정리한 것이 Table 3이다. 어떤 방법도 모든 경우에 적용할 수 있을 정도로 완벽하지는 않으므로 평가하고자 하는 부적합의 특성에 따라 적절한 평가방법을 선택하여 적용하는 것이 필요하다고 사료된다.

The presence of implant-prosthesis misfits can cause various complications. It is very important to detect misfits to prevent such complications. There are various evaluation methods for misfit assessment including clinical methods and laboratory in vitro methods. The clinical misfit evaluation includes radiographic analysis, visual observation, probing, Sheffield test, evaluation with disclosing materials, and screw resistance test. The laboratory in vitro evaluation method includes indirect modelling evaluation and direct metrological visualization. Of the indirect modelling methods, photoelastic stress analysis, finite element analysis, strain gauge analysis, and microbial colonization analysis were reviewed. Of the direct metrological visualization, microscopic analysis, 3-D photogrammetric analysis, coordinate measuring analysis, and radiographic analysis were reviewed. In this review, the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of each method were evaluated.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR. Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:314-325 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90491-6
  2. Jimbo R, Halldin A, Janda M, Wennerberg A, Vandeweghe S. Vertical fracture and marginal bone loss of internal-connection implants: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e171-176 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3052
  3. Cha HS, Kim YS, Jeon JH, Lee JH. Cumulative survival rate and complication rates of single-tooth implant; Focused on the coronal fracture of fixture in the internal connection implant. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:595-602 https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12065
  4. Branemark P. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  5. Watanabe F, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:209-218
  6. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620-625
  7. Kosyfaki P, del Pilar Pinilla Martin M, Strub JR. Relationship between crowns and the periodontium: a literature update. Quintessence Int 2010;41:109-126.
  8. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prosthese and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:121-138
  9. Sharkey S, Kelly A, Houston F, O'Sullivan M, Quinn F, O'connell B. A Radiographic analysis of implant component misfit. Int J oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:807-815
  10. Hayashi M, Watts DC, Ebisu S, Wilson NH. Influence of vision on the evaluation of marginal discrepancies in restorations. Oper Dent 2005;30:598-601
  11. Hayashi M, Wilson NH, Ebisu S, Wattts DC. Influence of explorer tip diameter in identifying restoration margin discrepancies. J Dent 2005;33:669-674 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.01.006
  12. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  13. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implant in the edentulous jaw: a study of treatment from the time of prostheses placement to the first annual check up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-276.
  14. Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:172-180 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060306.x
  15. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: A critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:506-515
  16. Lee JI, Lee Y, Kim YL, Cho HW. Effect of implant number and distribution on load transfer in implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses for the anterior maxilla: A photoelastic stress analysis study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:161-169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.021
  17. Lencioni KA, Macedo AP, Silveira Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF, Almeida RP. Photoelastic comparison of as-cast and laser-welded implant frameworks. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:652-659 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.005
  18. Lee JI, Lee Y, Kim NY, Kim YL, Cho HW. A photoelastic stress analysis of screw- and cementretained implant prostheses with marginal gaps. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:735-749
  19. de Torres EM, Barbosa GA, Bernardes SR, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Correlation between vertical misfits and stresses transmitted to implants from metal frameworks. J Biomech 2011;44:1735-1739 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.03.032
  20. Termeie D, Klokkevold PR, Caputo AA.. Effect of implant diameter and ridge dimension on stress distribution in mandibular first molar siters-A photoelastic study. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:e165-173 https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00008
  21. Geng JP, Tan KB, Liu GR. Application of finite element analysis in implant dentistry: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:585-598 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115251
  22. Kunavisarut C, Lang LA, Stoner BR, Felton DA. Finite element analysis on dental implant-supported prostheses without passive fit. J Prosthodont 2002;11:30-40
  23. Assuncao WG, Gomes EA, Rocha EP, Delben JA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of vertical and angular misfit in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:788-796
  24. Dos Santos MB, Zen BM, Bacchi A. Effect of vertical misfit and clip material on stress distribution of overdentures under masticatory loading. Med Biol Eng Comput 2016;54:1515-1521 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-015-1426-0
  25. Winter W, Taylor TD, Karl M. Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: A finite element analysis based on in vivo strain measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1288-1295
  26. Brosh T, Pilo R, Sudai D. The influence of abutment angulation on strains and stresses along the implant/bone interface: Comparison between two experimental techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:328-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70246-X
  27. Abduo J, Swain M. Influence of vertical misfit of titanium and zirconia frameworks on peri-implant strain. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:529-536
  28. De Vasconcellos DK, Ozcan M, Maziero Volpato CA, Bottino MA, Yener ES. Strain gauge analysis of the effect of porcelain firing simulation on the prosthetic misfit of implant-supported frameworks. Implant Dent 2012;21:225-229 https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3182566e59
  29. Tahmaseb A, Mercelis P, de Clerck R, Wismeijer D. Optical scan analysis to detect minor misfit on implant-supported superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1344-1350
  30. Nascimento Cd, Ikeda LN, Pita MS, Pedroso e Silva RC, Pedrazzi V, Albuquerque RF, Ribeiro RF. Marginal fit and microbial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of fixed partial prosthesis: An in vitro analysis using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:831-838 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.009
  31. Teixeira W, Ribeiro RF, Sato S, Pedrazzi V. Microleakage into and from two-stage implants: An in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:56-62
  32. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Assenza B, Leghissa GC, Di Bonaventura G, Catamo G, Piccollomini R. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screwretained implant-abutment connections. J Periodontol 2001;72:1146-1150 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146
  33. do Nascimento C, Miani PK, Pedrazzi V, Goncalves RB, Ribeiro RF, Faria AC, Macedo AP, de Albuquerque RF Jr. Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: in vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:551-560
  34. Lie A, Jemt T. Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures. Clin Oral Implants Res;5:30-36
  35. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Measurements of bone and frame-work deformations induced by misfit of implant superstructures. A pilot study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:272-280 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090408.x
  36. Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Teo JW, Wong KM, Tan KB. In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: The effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:313-321 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5087
  37. Geramipanah F, Sahebi M, Davari M, Hajimahmoudi M, Rakhshan V. Effects of impression levels and trays on the accuracy of impressions taken from angulated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1098-1105 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12410
  38. Eliasson A, Wennerberg A, Johansson A, Ortorp A, Jemt T. The precision of fit of milled titanium implant frameworks in the edentulous jaw. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:81-90
  39. Alvarez A, Lafita P, de Lianos H, Gago A, Brizuela A, Ellacuria JJ. A comparison of two soldering techniques on the misfit of bar-retained implantsupported overdentures. J Prosthodont 2014;23:163-170 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12083
  40. Spazzin AO, Bacchi A, Trevisani A, Farina AP, Dos Santos MB. Fit analysis of defferent framework fabrication techniques for implant-supported partial prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:351-353 https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4542
  41. Katsoulis J, Muller P, Mericske-Stern R, Blatz MB. CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long- vs. shortspan implant-supported FDPs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:245-249
  42. Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stren R, Rotkina L, Zbaren C, Enkling N, Blatz MB. Precision of fit of implantsupported screw-retained 10-unit computer-aided - designed and computer-aided-manufactured frameworks made from zirconium dioxide and titanium: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:44-49
  43. Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140224 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140224
  44. Rodrigues SA, Presotto AGC, Barao VAR, Consani RLX, Nobilo MAA, Mesquita MF. The role of welding techniques in the biomechanical behavior of implant-supported prostheses. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017;78:435-442 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.090
  45. Meleo D, Baggi L, Di Girolamo M, Di Carlo F, Pecci R, Bedini R. Fixture-abutment connection surface and micro-gap measurements by 3D micro-tomographic technique analysis. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2012;48:53-58
  46. Blum K, Wiest W, Fella C, Balles A, Dittmann J, Rack A, Maier D, Thomann R, Spies BC, Kohal RJ, Zabler S, Nelson K. Fatigue induced changes in conical implant-abutment connections. Dent Mater 2015;11:1415-1426
  47. Rack A, Rack T, Stiller M, Riesemeier H, Zabler S, Nelson K. In vitro synchrotron-based radiography of micro-gap formation at the implant-abutment interface of two-piece dental implants. J Synchrotron Radiat 2010;17:289-294 https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049510001834