Cargando…

Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of failure. The clinical outcome of ultrawide...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ku, Jeong-Kui, Yi, Yang-Jin, Yun, Pil-Young, Kim, Young-Kyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0075-z
_version_ 1782446528741244928
author Ku, Jeong-Kui
Yi, Yang-Jin
Yun, Pil-Young
Kim, Young-Kyun
author_facet Ku, Jeong-Kui
Yi, Yang-Jin
Yun, Pil-Young
Kim, Young-Kyun
author_sort Ku, Jeong-Kui
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of failure. The clinical outcome of ultrawide implants of more than 6 mm in diameter was evaluated through a retrospective study. METHODS: The investigation was conducted on patients who had received ultrawide implant (≥6 mm diameter) placements in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 2008 to December 2013. Complications were investigated during the maintenance period, and marginal bone loss was measured using periapical radiography. Primary stability immediately after the implant placement and second stability after second surgery or during impression were measured using Osstell(®) Mentor (Osstell, Sweden) as an implant stability quotient (ISQ). RESULTS: Fifty-eight implants were placed in 53 patients (30 male, 23 female), and they were observed for an average of 50.06 ± 23.49 months. The average ISQ value increased from 71.22 ± 10.26 to 77.48 ± 8.98 (P < 0.005). The primary and secondary stability shows significantly higher at the mandible than at the maxilla (P < 0.001). However, mean survival rate shows 98.28 %. Average marginal bone loss of 0.018 and 0.045 mm were measured at 12 and 24 months after the loading and 0.14 mm at final follow-up date (mean 46.25 months), respectively. Also in this study, the bone loss amount was noticeably small compared to regular implants reported in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent clinical outcome of ultrawide implants was confirmed. It was determined that an ultrawide implant can be used as an alternative when the bone quality in the posterior teeth is relatively low or when a previous implant has failed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4974300
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49743002016-08-17 Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter Ku, Jeong-Kui Yi, Yang-Jin Yun, Pil-Young Kim, Young-Kyun Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg Research BACKGROUND: The prognosis of wide implants tends to be controversial. While wider implants were initially expected to result in a larger osseointegration area and have higher levels of primary stability, they were reported to have a relatively high rate of failure. The clinical outcome of ultrawide implants of more than 6 mm in diameter was evaluated through a retrospective study. METHODS: The investigation was conducted on patients who had received ultrawide implant (≥6 mm diameter) placements in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 2008 to December 2013. Complications were investigated during the maintenance period, and marginal bone loss was measured using periapical radiography. Primary stability immediately after the implant placement and second stability after second surgery or during impression were measured using Osstell(®) Mentor (Osstell, Sweden) as an implant stability quotient (ISQ). RESULTS: Fifty-eight implants were placed in 53 patients (30 male, 23 female), and they were observed for an average of 50.06 ± 23.49 months. The average ISQ value increased from 71.22 ± 10.26 to 77.48 ± 8.98 (P < 0.005). The primary and secondary stability shows significantly higher at the mandible than at the maxilla (P < 0.001). However, mean survival rate shows 98.28 %. Average marginal bone loss of 0.018 and 0.045 mm were measured at 12 and 24 months after the loading and 0.14 mm at final follow-up date (mean 46.25 months), respectively. Also in this study, the bone loss amount was noticeably small compared to regular implants reported in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The excellent clinical outcome of ultrawide implants was confirmed. It was determined that an ultrawide implant can be used as an alternative when the bone quality in the posterior teeth is relatively low or when a previous implant has failed. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4974300/ /pubmed/27547748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0075-z Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Ku, Jeong-Kui
Yi, Yang-Jin
Yun, Pil-Young
Kim, Young-Kyun
Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title_full Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title_fullStr Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title_short Retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
title_sort retrospective clinical study of ultrawide implants more than 6 mm in diameter
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27547748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0075-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kujeongkui retrospectiveclinicalstudyofultrawideimplantsmorethan6mmindiameter
AT yiyangjin retrospectiveclinicalstudyofultrawideimplantsmorethan6mmindiameter
AT yunpilyoung retrospectiveclinicalstudyofultrawideimplantsmorethan6mmindiameter
AT kimyoungkyun retrospectiveclinicalstudyofultrawideimplantsmorethan6mmindiameter