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

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

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.

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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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).
jkap-47-136f1.tif
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
jkap-47-136f2.tif
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