Re-Mee Doh; Hong-Suk Moon; Jun-Sung Shim; Keun-Woo Lee

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.136

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(2) > 1034570

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Doh, Moon, Shim, and Lee: Retrospective study of the Implantium® implant with a SLA surface and internal connection with microthreads

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(2):136-147.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.136

Retrospective study of the Implantium^® implant with a SLA surface and internal connection with microthreads

Re-Mee Doh, DDS, MSD¹, Hong-Suk Moon, MSD, DDS, PhD², Jun-Sung Shim, MSD, DDS, PhD², Keun-Woo Lee, DDS, MSD, PhD^3,^∗

^¹Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

^²Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

^³Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

Corresponding Author: Keun-Woo Lee Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea +82 2 2228 3158: e-mail kwlee@yuhs.ac

Received 8 August 200823 October 2008 Accepted 26 November 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

Since the introduction of the concept of osseointegration in dental implants, high longterm success rates have been achieved. Though the use of dental implants have increased dramatically, there are few studies on domestic implants with clinical and objective longterm data.

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to provide longterm data on the Implantium^® implant, which features a sandblasted and acid-etched surface and internal connection with microthreads.

Material and methods

106 Implantium^® implants placed in 38 patients at Yonsei University Hospital were examined to determine the effect of various factors on implant success and marginal bone loss, through clinical and radiographic results during a 6 to 30 month period.

Results

1. Out of a total of 106 implants placed in 38 patients, one fixture was lost, resulting in a 99.1% cumulative survival rate. 2. Among the 96 implants which were observed throughout the study period, the survival rates were 97.0% in the maxilla and 100% in the mandible. The survival rate in the posterior regions was 98.9% and 100% in the anterior regions. 3. The mean bone loss during the first year after prosthesis placement was 0.17 mm, while the mean annual bone loss after the first year was 0.04 mm, which was statistically less than during the first year (P < .05). 4. There was no significant difference in marginal bone loss according to age during the first year (P> .05), but after the first year, the mean annual bone loss in patients above 50 years was significantly greater (P < .05) compared with patients under 50 years. 5. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found according to the following factors: gender, jaw, location in the arch, type of implant (submerged or non-submerged), presence of bone grafts, type of prostheses, and type of opposing dentition (P < .05).

Conclusion

Based on these results, the sole factor influencing marginal bone loss was age, while factors such as gender, jaw, location in the arch, type of implant, presence of bone grafts, type of prostheses and type of opposing dentition had no significant effect on bone loss. In the present study, the success rate of the Implantium^® implant with a SLA surface and internal connection with microthreads was satisfactory up to a maximum 30 month period, and the marginal bone loss was in accord with the success criteria of dental implants.

Keywords: Implantium^®, SLA surface, internal connection, survival rate, marginal bone loss

REFERENCES

1.Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Bra ° nemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981. 10:387–416.

2.Buser D., Mericske-Stern R., Bernard JP., Behneke A., Behneke N., Hirt HP., Belser UC., Lang NP. Longterm evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:161–72.

3.Albrektsson T., Dahl E., Enbom L., Engevall S., Engquist B., Eriksson AR., Feldmann G., Freiberg N., Glantz PO., Kjellman O. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol. 1988. 59:287–96.

4.Becker W., Becker BE., Alsuwyed A., Al-Mubarak S. Longterm evaluation of 282 implants in maxillary and mandibular molar positions: a prospective study. J Periodontol. 1999. 70:896–901.

5.Bahat O. Bra ° nemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000. 15:646–53.

6.Wennerberg A., Albrektsson T., Andersson B., Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995. 6:24–30.

7.Cochran DL. A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol. 1999. 70:1523–39.

8.Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:91–9.

9.Abrahamsson I., Berglundh T. Tissue characteristics at mi-crothreaded implants: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006. 8:107–13.

10.Lekholm U., Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation, in Bra ° nemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (eds). Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, Quintesseence Publ Co;1985. p. 199–209.

11.Cochran DL., Buser D., ten Bruggenkate CM., Weingart D., Taylor TM., Bernard JP., Peters F., Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:144–53.

12.Seo JY., Shim JS., Lee KW. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2006. 44:394–404.

13.An HS., Moon HS., Shim JS., Cho KS., Lee KW. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Neoplant implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface and external connection. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008. 46:125–36.

14.Romeo E., Lops D., Margutti E., Ghisolfi M., Chiapasco M., Vogel G. Longterm survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:247–59.

15.Blanes RJ., Bernard JP., Blanes ZM., Belser UC. A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. I: Clinical and radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. 18:699–706.

16.Lindquist LW., Rockler B., Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:59–63.

17.Albrektsson T. Isidol. Consensus report of session IV. Lang N.P., Karring Y., editorsProceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology. 1994. p. 365–9. London: Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd.

18.Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999. 10:394–405.

19.Wennstrom JL., Ekestubbe A., Grondahl K., Karlsson S., Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2005. 32:567–74.

20.Lee DW., Choi YS., Park KH., Kim CS., Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. 18:465–70.

21.Palmer RM., Smith BJ., Palmer PJ., Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:173–9.

22.Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conical fixture design. The influence of surface macro- and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:91–9.

23.Moy PK., Medina D., Shetty V., Aghaloo TL. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005. 20:569–77.

24.Chung DM., Oh TJ., Lee J., Misch CE., Wang HL. Factors affecting late implant bone loss: a retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007. 22:117–26.

25.Naert I., Koutsikakis G., Duyck J., Quirynen M., Jacobs R., van Steenberghe D. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. part I: a longitudinal clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:381–9.

26.Wyatt CC., Zarb GA. Bone level changes proximal to oral implants supporting fixed partial prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:162–8.

27.Naert I., Koutsikakis G., Quirynen M., Duyck J., van Steenberghe D., Jacobs R. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part 2: a longitudinal radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:390–5.

28.Bryant SR., Zarb GA. Crestal bone loss proximal to oral implants in older and younger adults. J Prosthet Dent. 2003. 89:589–97.

29.Lang NP., Mombelli A., Tonetti MS., Bragger U., Hammerle CH. Clinical trials on therapies for peri-implant infections. Ann Periodontol. 1997. 2:343–56.

30.Wyatt CC., Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998. 13:204–11.

31.Ericsson I., Randow K., Glantz PO., Lindhe J., Nilner K. Clinical and radiographical features of submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994. 5:185–9.

32.Cecchinato D., Bengazi F., Blasi G., Botticelli D., Cardarelli I., Gualini F. Bone level alterations at implants placed in the posterior segments of the dentition: outcome of submerged/non-submerged healing. A 5-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008. 19:429–31.

33.Becker W., Becker BE., Ricci A., Bahat O., Rosenberg E., Rose LF., Handelsman M., Israelson H. A prospective mul-ticenter clinical trial comparing one- and two-stage titanium screw-shaped fixtures with one-stage plasma-sprayed solid-screw fixtures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000. 2:159–65.

34.Mayfield L., Skoglund A., Nobreus N., Attstrom R. Clinical and radiographic evaluation, following delivery of fixed reconstructions, at GBR treated titanium fixtures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:292–302.

35.Zitzmann NU., Scharer P., Marinello CP. Longterm results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001. 16:355–66.

36.Palmqvist S., Sondell K., Swartz B., Svenson B. Marginal bone levels around maxillary implants supporting overdentures or fixed prostheses: a comparative study using detailed narrow-beam radiographs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996. 11:223–7.

37.Enkling N., Nicolay C., Utz KH., Johren P., Wahl G., Mericske-Stern R. Tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. 18:231–6.

38.Pjetursson BE., Sailer I., Zwahlen M., Hammerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramicand metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. 18:73–85.

39.Galasso L. Proposed method for the standardized measurement of marginal bone height on periapical radiographs with the Branemark System. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000. 2:147–51.

Fig. 1.

Implantium^® implant (Dentium Co., Seoul, Korea).

Fig. 2.

References used to measure actual marginal bone loss. (a): junction between implant machined collar bevel and rough surface (b): implant to marginal bone contact level (c): inter-thread distance of six threads

Table I.

Number of implants placed according to bone quality

	Type I	Type II	Type III	Type IV	Unknown	Total
Maxilla	-	3	20	11	3	37
Mandible	-	34	26	3	6	69
Total	-	37	46	14	8	106

Table II.

Number of implants placed according to bone quantity

	A	B	C	D	E	Unknown	Total
Maxilla	-	13	21	-	-	3	37
Mandible	-	21	39	3	-	6	69
Total	-	34	60	3	-	8	106

Table III.

Life table analysis showing cumulative survival rates

Observation period	Implants placed	Implants failed	SR within period (%)	Cumulative SR (%)
Placement to Loading	106	1	99.1	99.1
Loading to 1 year	87	-	100	99.1
1 - 2 year	64	-	100	99.1
2 - 3 year	20	-	100	99.1

SR: survival rate.

Table IV.

Number of implants placed according to implant diameter

	Implant diameter (mm)
	3.4	3.8	4.3	4.8	4.8W	Total
Maxilla	-	8 (1)	10	11	3	32 (1)
Mandible	7	9	17	26	6	65
Total	7	17 (1)	27	37	9	97 (1)

Parenthesis: Number of failed implant

Table V.

Number of implants placed according to implant length

	Implant length (mm)
	8	10	12	14	Total
Maxilla	1	16	15 (1)	-	32 (1)
Mandible	12	27	26	-	65
Total	13	43	41 (1)	-	97 (1)

Parenthesis: Number of failed implant

Table VI.

Marg period ginal bone loss arou und implants accord ding to observation

	Marginal bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)
	Mesial	Distal	Total
Sur-B	0.28 ± 0.47	0.37 ± 0.50	0.33 ± 0.43
B-6 month	0.09 ± 0.19	0.16 ± 0.32	0.13 ± 0.20
B-1 year	0.17 ± 0.29	0.18 ± 0.31	0.17 ± 0.25
After 1 Year	0.03 ± 0.07	0.05 ± 0.12	0.04 ± 0.08

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-6 month: period from baseline to 6 month B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table VII.

Comparison of marginal bone loss around implants according to observation period

	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption discrepancy (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t-test P -value
Sur-B; B-1 year	88	0.13 ± 0.50 A	0.017
Sur-B; after 1 year	43	C 0.38 ± 0.56 B	0.000
B-1 year; after 1 year	43	B 0.13 ± 0.22	0.001

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation a, b, c: statistically significant (P < .05)

Table VIII.

Comparison of marginal bone loss between older and younger adults

	Age (year)	Number of implants observe	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t - test P - value
Sur-B	≥ 50 < 50	41 55	0.29 ± 0.52 0.35 ± 0.35	0.529
B-1 year	≥ 50 < 50	39 49	0.23 ± 0.29 0.14 ± 0.22	0.097
After 1 year	≥ 50 < 50	17 26	0.09 ± 0.11 0.01 ± 0.02	0.017

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table IX.

Comparison of marginal bone loss between male and female

	Gender	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t - test P - value
Sur-B	Male	36	0.21 ± 0.28	0.030
	Female	60	0.39 ± 0.49
B-1 year	Male	31	0.16 ± 0.26	0.706
	Female	57	0.19 ± 0.26
After 1 year	Male	14	0.08 ± 0.12	0.145
	Female	29	0.03 ± 0.04

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table X.

Number of implants placed according to location in arch

	Location
	Central incisor	Lateral incisor	Canine	1st premolar	2nd premolar	1st molar	2nd molar	Total
Maxilla	-	-	-	3	7 (1)	16	7	33 (1)
Mandible	3	3	3	6	8	23	18	64
Total	3	3	3	9	15 (1)	39	25	97 (1)

Parenthesis : Number of failed implant

Table XI.

Survival rates according to respective region in arch and jaw

	Anterior	Posterior	Survival rate (%)
Maxilla	0	33 (1)	97
Mandible	9	55	100
Survival rate (%)	100	98.9

Parenthesis: Number of failed implant

Table XII.

Comparison of marginal bone loss between maxilla and mandible

	Jaw	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ±SD)	t-test P-value
Sur-B	Maxilla	32	0.29 ±0.54	0.587
	Mandible	64	0.34 ±0.37
B-1 year	Maxilla	30	0.12 ±0.18	0.103
	Mandible	58	0.20 ±0.28
After 1 year	Maxilla	10	0.03 ±0.04	0.505
	Mandible	33	0.05 ±0.09

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table XIII.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to region in arch

	Location	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t-test P-value
Sur-B	Anterior	9	0.46 ± 0.37	0.274
	Posterior	87	0.31 ± 0.44
B-1 Year	Anterior	6	0.20 ± 0.21	0.816
	Posterior	82	0.18 ± 0.26
After 1 Year	r Anterior	4	0.02 ± 0.02	0.100
	Posterior	39	0.05 ± 0.08

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table XIV.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to submerged and non-submerged implants

	Type of implant	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ±SD)	t-test P-value
Sur-B	Submerged	46	0.37 ±0.52	0.326
	Non-submerged	50	0.28 ±0.33
B-1 Year	Submerged	42	0.23 ±0.27	0.093
	Non-submerged	46	0.13 ±0.23
After 1 Year	Submerged	27	0.06 ±0.10	0.175
	Non-submerged	16	0.02 ±0.04

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table XV.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to presence of bone grafts

	Graft	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ±SD)	t-test P-value
Sur-B	No graft	80	0.28 ±0.43	0.041
	GBR	16	0.53 ±0.37
B-1 Year	No graft	76	0.19 ±0.26	0.558
	GBR	12	0.14 ±0.22
After 1 Year	No graft	36	0.05 ±0.08	0.978
	GBR	7	0.04 ±0.07

GBR: guided bone regeneration Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table XVI.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to type of prostheses

	N Type of prostheses	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ±SD)	one-way ANOVA tes P-value
Sur-B	Single crown	23	0.21 ±0.24	0.339
	Splinted crown	62	0.34 ±0.47
	Fixed partial denture	9	0.51 ±0.52
	Removable prosthesis	2	0.20 ±0.04
B-1 Year	Single crown	17	0.17 ±0.29	0.593
	Splinted crown	61	0.16 ±0.24
	Fixed partial denture	8	0.29 ±0.32
	Removable prosthesis	2	0.18 ±0.26
After 1 Year	Single crown	8	0.04 ±0.10	0.963
	Splinted crown	30	0.05 ±0.08
	Fixed partial denture	5	0.05 ±0.04
	Removable prosthesis	-	-

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

Table XVII.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to state of opposing dentition

	Opposing dentition	Number of implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ±SD)	one-way ANOVA test P-value
Sur-B	Natural tooth	70	0.32 ±046	0.879
	Implant	24	0.35 ±0.38
	Removable	2	0.20 ±0.04
	Prosthesis
B-1 Year	Natural tooth	63	0.20 ±0.28	0.340
	Implant	23	0.11 ±0.20
	Removable	2	0.28 ±0.15
	Prosthesis
After 1 Year	Natural tooth	33	0.05 ±0.09	0.381∗
	Implant	10	0.02 ±0.03
	Removable
	Prosthesis

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading) B-1 year: period from baseline to 1 year SD: standard deviation

^∗ : independent t-test P-value

Table XVIII.

Type of clinical complications

Complication type	Number of cases	Total number of occurrence
Screw loosening	9	12
Decementation	1	2
Proximal contact loosening	1	1
Porcelain fracture	1	1
Mild dysesthesia	1	1

TOOLS

Similar articles