EVALUATION OF SELF OSTEOMIZING IMPLANTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF MANDIBULAR POSTERIOR TEETH (CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC STUDY)

Tawfik, Riman M.; El Sheikh, Samraa A.; Ragab, Hala R.

doi:10.21608/adjalexu.2020.82691

EVALUATION OF SELF OSTEOMIZING IMPLANTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF MANDIBULAR POSTERIOR TEETH (CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC STUDY)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ BDS, 2010, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

² Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University.

³ Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

10.21608/adjalexu.2020.82691

Abstract

Introduction: Osseointegration, defined as a direct structural and functional connection between ordered living bone and the surface of a load-carrying implant, is critical for implant stability and is considered a prerequisite for implant loading and long-term clinical success of endosseous dental implants.
Primary stability following implant placement is essential for osseointegration and is mainly influenced by the following main factors density, quantity of bone at the implant site and implant design.
Moreover, implant surface topography is a key factor in the achievement of osseointegration, the most common modification of implant topography is surface roughness. This is achieved by acid etching, sandblasting, or oxidization.
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of using MPM, compared to the use of bone graft alone, to assess the exact effect of each in enhancing the osteogenic differentiation and bone formation.
Materials and methods: This clinical study was performed on a total of eleven patients (14 implants), with missing mandibular posterior teeth indicated for implant restoration. Implants were placed according to manufacturer's instructions. After 3 months, final crowns were delivered. All implants were followed up for 6 months. Clinically, each patient was evaluated for pain, swelling and stability of the implant. Radiographically, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used for the assessment of marginal bone level and bone density. Results:There was a significant increase in bone density from the preoperative phase to the end of the 6 months. The mean of marginal bone level loss from the preoperative period to the 3rd month was significant as well as from the preoperative period to the 6th month. One case displayed periimplantitis and mobility in the first month of follow up and hence it was removed and regarded as failure case.
Conclusions: Self osteomizing implants are a good choice for replacing missing mandibular posterior teeth with satisfactory clinical outcomes and a low incidence of complications.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Oral and maxillofacial surgery

References

1-Jayesh RS, Dhinakarsamy V. Osseointegration J. Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(Suppl 1):S226-S9.

2-Parithimarkalaignan S, Padmanabhan TV. Osseointegration: An Update. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13:2-6.

3-Natali AN, Carniel EL, Pavan PG. Investigation of viscoelastoplastic response of bone tissue in oral implants press fi t process. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;91:868-75.

4-Greenstein G, Cavallaro J, Romanos G, Tarnow D. Clinical recommendations for avoiding and managing surgical complications associated with implant dentistry: A review. J Periodontol. 2008;79:1317-29.

5-Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:443-76.

6-Baldi D, Lombardi T, Colombo J, Cervino G, Perinetti G, Di Lenarda R, et al. Correlation between Insertion Torque and Implant Stability Quotient in Tapered Implants with Knife-Edge Thread Design. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:7201093.

7-McCormack HM, David Jdl, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales:a critical review. Psychol Med 1988;18:1007-19.

8-Dias DR, Leles CR, Lindh C, Riberio – Rotta RF. The effect of marginal bone level changes on the stability of dental implants in a short-term evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:1185-90.

9-Burtscher D, Norer B, Dalla Torre D, Beier U, Schubert K, Grunert I. A 7-year prosoective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around two different implant systems: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;261244-9.

10-Berberi AN, Sabbagh JM, Aboushelib MN, Noujein ZF, Salameh ZA. A 5-year comparison of marginal bone level following immediate loading of single tooth implants placed in healed alveolar ridges and extraction sockets in the maxilla. Front Physiol. 2014:5;29.

11-Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.

12-Gaviria L, Salcido JP, Guda T, Ong JL. Current trends in dental implants. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;40:50-60.

13-Fickl S, Zuhr O, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform switched abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:577-81.

14-Vissink A, Spijkervet F, Raghoebar GM. The medically compromised patient: Are dental implants a feasible option? Oral Dis. 2018;24:253-60.

15-Kandasamy B, Kaur N, Tomar GK, Bharadwaj A, Manual L, Chauhan M. Long-term Retrospective Study based on Implant Success Rate in Patients with Risk Factor: 15-year Follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19:90-3.

16-Ruiz RAD, guirado JLC, de Val JEM, Moreno GG. Primary stability of dental implants with different thread geometries placed by clinicians with different clinical experience: An in vitro study. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016;2:48-55.

17-Kim SK, Lee HN, Choi YC, Heo SJ, Lee CW, Choie MK. Effects of anodized oxidation or turned implants on bone healing after using conventional drilling or trabecular compaction technique: histomorphometric analysis and RFA. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:644-50.

18-Sennerby L. Dental implants: matters of course and controversies. Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:9-14.

19-Friberg B, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L. Clinical outcome of Branemark System implants of various diameters: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:671-7.

20-Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface Modifications and Their Effects on Titanium Dental Implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:791725.

21-Frisardi G, Barone S, Razionale AV, Paoli A, Frisardi F, Tullio A, et al. Biomechanics of the press-fit phenomenon in dental implantology: an image-based finite element analysis. Head Face Med. 2012;8:18.

22-Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S. Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:e506-12.

23-Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH, Pinas L, Orive G. Efficacy of biologically guided implant site preparation to obtain adequate primary implant stability. Ann Anat. 2015;199:9-15.

24-Coelho PG, Marin C, Teixeira HS, Campos FE, Gomes JB, Guastaldi F, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of undersized drilling on implant biomechanical stability at early implantation times. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:e69-75.

25-Marković A, Calvo-Guirado JL, Lazić Z, Gómez-Moreno G, Ćalasan D, Guardia J, et al. Evaluation of Primary stability of Self Tapping and Non Self tapping Dental Implants.A12 week Clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15:341-9.

26-Al-Sudani RJ. Assessment of bone density after six months from dental implants placement using computed tomography. J Baghdad Coll Dent. 2014;26:126-8.

27-De Almeida FD, Carvalho AC, Fontes M, Pedrosa A, Costa R, Noleto JW, et al. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around internal-hex implants with switched platform: a clinical case report series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:587-92.

28-Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):2-21.

29-Galindo-Moreno P, Leon-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, F OV, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:e28-e34.