Investigating the amount of crustal bone loss around cylindrical implants compared to conical implants after 6 months of loading

Number of pages: 62 File Format: word File Code: 31939
Year: Not Specified University Degree: Master's degree Category: Medical Sciences
  • Part of the Content
  • Contents & Resources
  • Summary of Investigating the amount of crustal bone loss around cylindrical implants compared to conical implants after 6 months of loading

    Dissertation for receiving the degree of Doctor of Dentistry

    Abstract

    The long-term clinical success of implants depends on osseointegration and adhesion of soft tissues and epithelium to the implant surfaces. Various indices including: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding during probing and bone resorption are used to evaluate the health of the soft tissues around the implant, marginal bone resorption is evaluated by radiography and is directly related to the long-term success of implant treatments. In order for the manufacturers of dental implants to be able to minimize the amount of bone crest erosion, they have applied various measures, including making changes to the surface of the implant (acid acid, sandblast, hydroxyapatite, etc.), changing the shape of the implant (cylindrical, conical) and changing the threads (type, shape and depth of the thread).

    Objectives:

    The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the shape of the implant body on the amount of crustal bone resorption around conical and cylindrical implants of the SPI system, six months after loading.

    Materials and methods:

    A set of 32 SPI implants (19 implants conical/13 cylindrical implants), were placed in 12 male patients in a two-stage method. None of the patients had systemic disease or parafunctional habits and had keratinized gums and proper bone. Periapical images were prepared in a parallel way, at the beginning and six months after loading from the implant site. Clinical evaluations such as pocket depth and BOP index were recorded.

    Findings:

    After six months of loading, the amount of crustal bone loss in cylindrical implants was: mm(0.29)±0.84 and in conical implants: mm(0.62)±0.73, which was not significantly different (P=0.5 ).  The average pocket depth in cylindrical implants: 2.61 ± 0.45 mm and in conical implants: 2.36 ± 0.44 mm (P = 0.1). BOP index in the cylindrical group: 53.8% and in the conical group: 47.4% (P = 0.7)). In terms of the corresponding jaw, the amount of bone resorption and pocket depth in the upper jaw is slightly higher, but it is not statistically significant.

    Conclusion:

    In this study, no significant difference was observed in terms of the amount of crustal bone resorption, pocket depth and BOP index between conical and cylindrical implants.

    Words Key:

    Conical implant, cylindrical implant, crystal bone analysis

    Introduction:

    Loss of teeth disturbs patient's esthetics, chewing and speaking. Although dental prostheses are able to restore the patient's aesthetics and function to some extent, some problems caused by them cause patients to seek the use of implant-supported prostheses. Reduction of treatment time and comfort of the patient, along with having more favorable aesthetics, are the advantages of treatment with dental implants. The success rate of almost 100% and the absence of destruction of the adjacent teeth are among the things that have led to the increase in the use of implant treatments.

    It has been shown that osseointegration is achieved when the implants are placed in their correct position using the appropriate surgical technique, with minimal trauma and minimal heat during the operation. Implants must be initially stable and mechanically loaded during the two to six month healing period. All the above factors are effective on osseointegration.

    The long-term clinical success of implants is dependent on osseointegration and adhesion of soft tissues and epithelium to implant surfaces. As dental implants are exposed to the oral environment, exposure to factors such as cigarette smoke and bacterial plaque should be prevented. Since the contact of the implant with the bone is without the presence of PDL and collagen fibers as is normal in the tooth, therefore the tissues around the implant are prone to infection. Various indices including: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding during probing and bone resorption to evaluate the health of the soft tissues around the implant.Various indices including: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding during probing and bone resorption are used to evaluate the health of the soft tissues around the implant, marginal bone resorption is evaluated by radiography and is directly related to the long-term success of implant treatments. According to various studies, bone crest changes in the first year after implant placement should be less than 1mm, which seems to be due to the adaptation of the bone around the implant to the occlusal load. In order for the manufacturers of dental implants to be able to minimize the amount of bone crest erosion, they have applied various measures, among which it is possible to mention the creation of surface changes of the implant (H acid, sandblast, hydroxyapatite, etc.), change in the shape of the implant (cylindrical, conical) and change in the threads (type, shape and depth of the thread).

    The aim of this study is to investigate The effect of one of these changes (the shape of the implant) is on the amount of bone crest resorption after a period of six months after loading.

    General: Definition of the implant

    The implant consists of two parts, Im and Plant (1). Im means inside and Plant means planting (2). An implant is an object that is implanted somewhere, and in dental terms, it is a device that passes through the oral mucosa and is placed on or inside the jaw bone (3).

    Implant structure

    Generally, each implant consists of three parts (4).

    Fixture (Fixture)

    Abutment

    Super structure

    Implant ingredients

    Metal biomaterials such as titanium, aluminum, and anadium are widely used, and carbon, aluminum oxide, ceramic, and silicon compounds are also used. to be The group of precious metals such as gold, platinum and their alloys are less used. On the other hand, preliminary studies have been conducted on a combination of iron, cobalt and molybdenum, as well as a combination of iron, iron and nickel. Polymers and their compounds (polymethyl methacrylate, silicone rubber, polyethylene) are not commonly used, but the advancement of technology promises their use in the future (5). It is classified (5).

    The shape of the implant body

    The shape of the implant body is effective in predicting osseointegration after implant placement and maintaining osseointegration after long-term function.

  • Contents & References of Investigating the amount of crustal bone loss around cylindrical implants compared to conical implants after 6 months of loading

    List:

    Introduction

     

    Chapter One: General and review articles

    General: Implant definition

     

    Implant structure

     

    Implant constituent materials

     

    Implant design

     

    Implant body shape

    Implant surface topography

    Key factors to achieve osseointegration

    Factors related to failure to achieve osseointegration

    A) - Internal factors

    B) - Factors related to surgery

    C) - Factors related to biomaterials

    Introduction of the SPI system

    Review of articles:

    Chapter Two: Statement of the problem

    Statement of the problem

    General objective

    Objectives Partial

     

    Applicable objectives

     

    Chapter three: Materials and methods

    Type of study

     

    Sample size

     

    Working method

     

    "Checking a number of important variables"

     

    1. Analysis Bone

     

    2.Pocket depth

     

    3. Presence of gingivitis

     

    Statistical analysis

     

     

    Chapter four: Results

     

    Comparison of bone loss around cylindrical and conical implants

    Comparison of pocket depth around cylindrical and conical implants

    Comparison of bleeding during probing (BOP) around cylindrical and conical implants

     

    Comparison of bone changes in upper and lower jaw

    Comparison of pocket depth changes in upper jaw and Bottom

     

     

    Chapter Five: Discussion

    Discussion

     

    Conclusion and suggestions

     

    Conclusion

     

    Suggestions

     

    Resources

     

    Source:

     

     

    1) Zwemer TJ. Mosby's dental dictionary, 1st edition, St. Louis, Mosby, 1998: 254 - 55.

    2) Newman WA. Dorland's medical dictionary, 27th ed, Philadelphia, W.B. 5aunders Co, 1994: 827 - 28.

    3) Babbush CA. Endosteal, mucosal, subperiosteal and transosseous implants in Laskin DM (editor), Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 2nded, Philadelphia, W.B. 5aunders Co, 1995: 438 - 40.

    4) Misch CEo Generic Root Form Component Terminology. In:

    Misch's Contemporary Implant Dcntistry.Bv' ed, St.Louis, Mosby,

     

    2008: 26 - 37.

    5) Klokkevold PR, Cochran DL. Clinical Aspects and Evaluation of the Implant Patient. In: Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA Carranza's Clinical Periodontology, 10th ed, Philadelphia, W.B.5unders Co, 2006; 1087 - 104.

    6) Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP. Removal

    Torque values ??of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998 Sep - Oct; 13(5): 611-9.

    7) Ericsson I, Johansson Cli, Bystedt H, Norton MR.

    A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants.

    A pilot study in dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994 Dec; 5 (4): 202-6.

    8) Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M, Caputo A. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. Torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 Dec; 8 (6): 422 - 7.

    9) Misch CE, Strong JT, Bydez MW. Scientific Rationale for Dental Implant Design. In: Misch's Contemporary Implant Dentistry, 3rd edition, St. Louis, Mosby, 2008; 200 - 29.

    10) Biesbrock AR, Edgerton M. Evaluation of the clinical predictability of hydroxyapatite-coat endosseous dental implants:

    A review of literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 Nov - Dec; 10: 712 - 20.

    11) Ellingsen JE. Surface configurations of dental implants. J Periodontal 2000 1998 Jun; 17: 36 - 46.

    12) Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm V, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures ofBiological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II) Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 1998 June; 106 (3): 721-64.

     

    13) Mailath G, Stoiber B, Watzek G, Matejka M. Bone resorption at the entry of

     

    osseointegrated implants-a biomechanical phenomenon. Finite element study. Z

     

    Stomatol 1989; 86(4): 207-16

     

    14) Siegele D, Solte´sz U. Numerical investigations of the influence of implant

     

    shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone.

     

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:333–340.

    15) Rieger MR, Mayberry M, Brose MO. Finite element analysis of six endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63(6): 671-6.

    16) Andersson B. Implants for single-tooth replacement. A clinical and

    experimental study on the Br?nemark CeraOne System. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1995;108:1-41 17) Friberg B, Sennerby L, Roos J, Johansson P, Strid CG, Lekholm U. Evaluation of bone density using cutting resistance measurements and microradiography: an in vitro

    Study in pig ribs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:164–171.

    18) Jokstad A, Braegger U, Brunski J, Carr A, Naert I et al. Quality of dental

    implants. Int J of prosthodont.2004;17(6):607-641

    19) O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Influence of implant taper on the

    primary and secondary stability of osseointegrated titanium implants.

    Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(4):474-80

    20) KaroussisI, Br?ggerU, SalviG, Bürgin W, Lang N. Effect of implant design

     

    on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective

    cohort study of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res

     

    2004;15: 8–17

     

    21) Petrie C, Williams J. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence

     

    of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest.

     

    Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(4):486-94.

     

    22) O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial

     

    stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant

     

    Dent Relat Res. 2000;2:85–92. 23) Saadoun AP, Le Gall MG, Touati B. Current trends in implantology: part 1—biological response, implant stability, and implant design. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2004;16:529–535.

     

    24) Ormianer Z, Palti A. Long-term clinical evaluation of tapered multi-threaded

    implants: results and influences of potential risk factors. J Oral Implantol.

    2006;32(6):300-307

    25) CruzM, LourençoA, ToledoE, Barra L, Lemonge A et al. Finite element

    stress analysis of cuneiform and cylindrical threaded implant geometries.

    Technol Health Care. 2006;14(4-5):421-38

    26) Huang HL, Chang CH, Hsu JT, Fallgatter AM, KoCC. Comparison of implant body designs and threaded designs of dental implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants 2007; 22(4): 551-62.

    27) Khayat P, Milliez S. Prospective Clinical Evaluation of 835 Multithreaded

    Tapered Screw-Vent Implants: Results After Two Years of Functional Loading.

    J Oral Implantology 2007; 33(4): 225-231.

     

    28) Kim J, Baekb S, Kimc T, Changc Y. Comparison of Stability between

     

    Cylindrical and Conical Type Mini-Implants.

     

    Angle Orthodontist 2008; 78(4):692-698

     

    29) Ormianer Z, Palti A. Retrospective clinical evaluation of tapered screw-vent implants: results after up to eight years of clinical function.

Investigating the amount of crustal bone loss around cylindrical implants compared to conical implants after 6 months of loading