Journal List > J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg > v.37(6) > 1032506

TOOLS
Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, and Kim: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts
Original Article

J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;37(6):483-489.

Published online: 10 January 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.6.483

The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts

Tae-Yi Kim1, Ye-Mi Kim2, Ji-Youn Kim2, Myung-Rae Kim1, 2, Sun-Jong Kim1, 2

1Department of Implantology, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

Sun-Jong Kim Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University 911-1, Mok-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul 158-050, Korea TEL: +82-2-2650-5041 FAX: +82-2-2650-5764 E-mail: sjsj7777@ewha.ac.kr

Received 11 July 2011       Revised 26 August 2011       Accepted 12 October 2011

Copyright © 2011 Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

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

Introduction

This study examined the cumulative resorption of implants placed in a severely atrophic mandible and analyzed the radiologic bone resorption in the marginal bone, after an autogenous bone graft including both block and particulates that had been harvested from the ramus and iliac crest.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients who had bone grafts for augmentation followed by implant installation in the mandible area from 2003 to 2008. Twelve patients (6 men and 6 women) who received 34 implants in the augmented sites were evaluated. Cumulative radiologic resorption around the implants was measured immediately, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after implant installation surgery.

Results

The installed implant in grafted bone showed 0.84 mm marginal bone resorption after 3 months and 50% total cumulative resorption after 1 year. The mean marginal bone resorption around the implant installed in the grafted bone was 0.44 mm after 3 months, 0.52 mm after 1 year, after which it stabilized. The implant survival rate was 97% (failed implant was 1/34). Marginal bone resorption of the installed implant in the autogenous onlay block bone grafts was 0.98 mm after 3 months, which was significantly higher than that of a particulated bone graft (0.74 mm) (P<0.05).

Conclusion

An autogenous graft including block type and particulate type is a predictable procedure for the use of dental implants in a severely atrophic mandible. Implant placement in augmented areas show a relatively high survival and minimal bone loss, as revealed by a radiologic evaluation.

Keywords: Dental implants, Bone graft, Bone resorption

References

1. Brånemark PI, Lindström J, Hallén O, Breine U, Jeppson PH.

Fig. 1.
Autogenous block bone graft, implant installation and functional loading. These figures were collected from different patients who underwent ramal bone graft and implant installation surgery. A. Pre-operative radiography. B. Immediate post-operative radiography after autogenous block bone graft operation. C. Immediate post-operative radiography after implant fixtures installation operation. D. Follow-up radiography after functional loading. Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011
jkaoms-37-483f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Simultaneous implant installation with autogenous particulated bone and xenogenic bone graft. These figures were collected from different patients who underwent particulated autogenous bone and xenogenic bone graft and implant installation surgery. A. Pre-operative radiography. These previous implants were removed at bone graft surgery because of those mobility and pain. B. Immediate postoperative radiography after mixed particulated bone graft and implant installation. C. Follow-up post-operative radiography after functional loading. Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011
jkaoms-37-483f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Delayed implant installation after guided bone regeneration technique with autogenous particulated bone. A. Immediate postoperative radiography after autogenous particulated bone graft. B. Immediate post-operative radiography after 7-month delayed implant installation. C. Follow-up radiography after implant functional loading. Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011
jkaoms-37-483f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Formula for calculation of bone level and height. Average real length was calculated from (A+B/2 ×magnificent rate). Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011
jkaoms-37-483f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Cumulative marginal bone resorption after implant placement in/with the grafted bone. Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011
jkaoms-37-483f5.tif
Table 1.
Patients’ description
Description Period/number
Post-operative follow-up (mon) Number of patients 32±28 (4–60) 12 (male: 6, female: 6)
Age of patients (yr) Number of target areas Number of implants 56±11 16 34

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

Table 2.
Number of implants placed after autogenous bone graft according to time of implant installation
Period between graft and installation (mon) Number
0 (immediate installation) Up to 3 Up to 6 15 0 9
Up to 12 Up to 24 9 1

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

Table 3.
Number of implants according to donors and graft methods
  Ramus Iliac Total
Block 6 8 14
Particulated 13 7 20
Total 19 15 34

ae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants ccording to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 011

Table 4.
Number of implant systems used in this study
  Implant system Number of implants
Internal connection Replace (Nobel Biocare AB, Sweden) 12
External connection USII (Osstem, Korea) MKIII (Nobel Biocare AB, Sweden) 8 14
Total   34

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

Table 5.
Cumulative marginal bone resorption after implant placement in/with the grafted bone
Period after implantation (mon) Resorption (mm)
3 0.84
6 1.28
12 1.80

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

Table 6.
Cumulative resorption according to donor site (mm)
  3 mon 6 mon 12 mon
Ramus 0.91 1.48 2.04
Iliac 0.48 0.78 1.28

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

Table 7.
Cumulative resorption according to type of the grafted bone (mm)
  3 mon1 6 mon 12 mon
Block bone 0.98 1.37 1.91
Particulated bone 0.74 1.20 1.67

1 statistically significant at 3 months (P<0.05).

Tae-Yi Kim et al: The retrospective study of marginal bone loss around dental implants according to different autogenous bone grafts. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011

TOOLS
Similar articles