구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제38권1호
  • /
  • Pages.9-17
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

개방된 인접면 접촉이 인접자연치와 임플란트에 미치는 영향

Effect of open proximal contact on adjacent tooth and implant

  • 문소현 (조선대학교 치과병원 치과보철과) ;
  • 김광윤 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 조성현 (조선대학교 치과병원 치과보철과) ;
  • 송주헌 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치과대학 보철학교실)
  • Moon, Sohyun (Department of Prosthodontics, Chosun Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Gwangyun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Cho, Seonghun (Department of Prosthodontics, Chosun Dental Hospital) ;
  • Song, Joohun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 투고 : 2022.03.11
  • 심사 : 2022.03.14
  • 발행 : 2022.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 이 연구의 목적은 개방된 인접면 접촉이 인접하는 자연치와 임플란트에 어떠한 영향을 주는지 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 조선대학교 치과병원에서 2008부터 2018년 사이에 개방된 인접면 접촉으로 제작된 구치부 임플란트 수복물을 장착한 환자 중에서 유지관리기간이 최소 3년 이상이고 인접하는 자연치아가 건강하면서 대합치가 고정성 수복물인 임플란트를 20개 선정하여 실험군(Group A)으로 하였다. 동일한 선정기준 하에 같은 기간 통상적인 방법으로 제작된 구치부 임플란트 20개를 대조군(Group B)으로 하였다. 두 그룹사이에 임플란트와 접하는 자연치의 우식, 식편압입, 임플란트의 변연골 상실을 비교 평가하였다. 결과: Group A과 Group B 사이에 치아우식과 식편압입 및 변연골 흡수의 발생빈도는 통계학적으로 유의성이 없었다. Group A와 Group B의 평균 변연골 흡수양은 각기 0.80 ± 0.39 mm, 1.1 ± 0.43 mm였으며, 두 그룹사이에 통계학적으로 유의한 차이가 있었다. 결론: 이 실험의 결과내에서, 개방된 인접면 접촉을 가진 임플란트 보철은 인접하는 자연치와 임플란트에 어떠한 유해한 영향을 주지 않으므로 선택적인 상황에서 임상에 적용할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how open contacts impact the natural teeth and dental implant prostheses. Materials and Methods: Following criteria were used to select 20 implant crowns with open proximal contacts as the experimental group (Group A): the restorations were delivered in Chosun University Dental Hospital between 2008 and 2018, the restorations are in the posterior region, opposing teeth are fixed dental prostheses, neighboring teeth are sound natural teeth, the patient had been on the maintenance program for at least 3 years. Another 20 implant crowns with closed proximal contacts were selected as the control group (Group B) using the same criteria. Between the two groups, dental caries and food impaction of the neighboring natural teeth and marginal bone-loss of the implants were compared and evaluated. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B in the occurrence rates of dental caries, food impaction, and marginal bone-loss. The amount of marginal bone-loss, however, revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups, with Group A showing 0.80 ± 0.39 mm loss and Group B showing 1.1 ± 0.43 mm loss. Conclusion: Implant prostheses with open contacts could be clinically considered in select cases as such restorations revealed no harmful effects on neighboring teeth and implant restorations within the perimeters of this study.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2019년 조선대학교 학술연구비의 지원을 받아 연구되었음.

참고문헌

  1. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;44:377-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023
  2. Pang NS, Suh CS, Kim KD, Park W, Jung BY. Prevalence of proximal contact loss between implantsupported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors: a 7-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1501-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13018
  3. Froum SJ. The team approach to managing dental implant complications: the periodontist's point of view. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013;34 Spec 7:4-9.
  4. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Burgin W, Hicklin S, Bragger U. Complication and failure rates with implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and single crowns: a 10-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:356-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12066
  5. Lang NP, Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (fpds) after an observation period of at least 5 years. II. Combined tooth - implant-supported FPDs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:643-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01118.x
  6. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
  7. Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent 2017;11:135-40. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_340_16
  8. Wei H, Tomotake Y, Nagao K, Ichikawa T. Implant prostheses and adjacent tooth migration: preliminary retrospective survey using 3-dimensional occlusal analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:302-4.
  9. Koori H, Morimoto K, Tsukiyama Y, Koyano K. Statistical analysis of the diachronic loss of interproximal contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:535-40.
  10. Wat PY, Wong AT, Leung KC, Pow EH. Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)00174-5
  11. Byun SJ, Heo SM, Ahn SG, Chang M. Analysis of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and adjacent teeth in relation to influential factors and effects: a cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:709-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12373
  12. Daftary F, Mahallati R, Bahat O, Sullivan RM. Lifelong craniofacial growth and the implications for osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:163-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2827
  13. Downs WB. Mesial drift. Angle Orthod 1938;8:77-99.
  14. DiPietro GJ, Moergeli JR. Significance of the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle to prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:624-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90026-3
  15. Southard TE, Behrents RG, Tolley EA. The anterior component of occlusal force. Part 1. Measurement and distribution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:493-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90116-9
  16. Wong AT, Wat PY, Pow EH, Leung KC. Proximal contact loss between implant-supported prostheses and adjacent natural teeth: a retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:e68-71.
  17. Jovanovic SA. Peri-implant tissue response to pathological insults. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:82-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130012001
  18. Saber A, Chakar C, Mokbel N, Nohra J. Prevalence of interproximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed prostheses and adjacent teeth and its impact on marginal bone loss: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35:625-30. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7926
  19. Sfondouris T, Prestipino V. Chairside management of an open proximal contact on an implant-supported ceramic crown using direct composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.019
  20. Jernberg GR, Bakdash MB, Keenan KM. Relationship between proximal tooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1983;54:529-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1983.54.9.529
  21. Yi SW, Carlsson GE, Ericsson I, Kim CK. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed implant-supported partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:998-1002. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00819.x
  22. Varthis S, Tarnow DP, Randi A. Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent teeth. Prevalence - causes - possible solutions. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e806-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12980
  23. Shi JY, Zhu Y, Gu YX, Lai HC. Proximal contact alterations between implant-supported restorations and adjacent natural teeth in the posterior region: a 1-year preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:165-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6870
  24. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:95-105.
  25. Wheeler RC. Some fundamentals in tooth form. Dent Cosmos 1928;70:889.
  26. Wheeler RC. Dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 1-4 eds. Philadelphia; Saunders; 1940, 1950, 1958, 1965.
  27. Kraus B, Jordan R, Abrams L. Dental anatomy and occlusion. Baltimore; Williams & Wilkins; 1967.
  28. Glickman I. Clinical periodontology. 1-4 eds. Philadelphia; W.B. Saunders; 1953, 1958, 1964, 1966.
  29. Goldman H, Cohen DW. Periodontal therapy. 1-4 eds. St. Louis; Mosby; 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968.
  30. Henry PJ, Johnston JF, Mitchell DF. Tissue changes beneath fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:937-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90016-3
  31. Wheeler RC. Complete crown form and the periodontium. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:722. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(61)90181-0
  32. Loe H, Theilade E, Jensen SB. Experimental gingivitis in man. J Periodontol 1965;36:177-87. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1965.36.3.177
  33. Schwartz RS, Massler M, Le Beau LJ. Gingival reactions to different types of tooth accumulated materials. J Periodontol 1971;42:144-51. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1971.42.3.144
  34. Socransky S. Relationship of bacteria to the etiology of periodontal disease. J Dent Res 1970;49:203-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345700490020401
  35. Eissmann HF, Radke RA, Noble WH. Physiologic design criteria for fixed dental restorations. Dent Clin North Am 1971;15:543-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8532(22)01473-2
  36. Morris ML. Artificial crown contours and gingival health. J Prosthet Dent 1962;12:1146-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(62)90168-3
  37. Morris ML. The position of the margin of the gingiva. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1958;11:969-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(58)90137-3
  38. Yuodelis RA, Weaver JD, Sapkos S. Facial and lingual contours of artificial complete crown restorations and their effect on the periodontium. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:61-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90140-6