The efficacy evaluation of PostPlantTM Calcium in dental implant placement

Yu-Sung Choi; Eun-Kyung Kim; Se-Won Kim; In-Ho Cho

doi:10.4047/jkap.2010.48.2.128

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.48(2) > 1034618

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Kim, Kim, and Cho: The efficacy evaluation of PostPlantTM Calcium in dental implant placement

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48(2):128-134.

Published online: 18 December 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2010.48.2.128

The efficacy evaluation of PostPlant^TM Calcium in dental implant placement

Yu-Sung Choi, DDS, MSD¹, Eun-Kyung Kim, MSD, DDS, PhD², Se-Won Kim, MSD, DDS, PhD³, In-Ho Cho, DDS, MSD, PhD^1,^∗

^¹Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea

^²Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea

^³Oscotec Incorporation, Cheonan, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: In-Ho Cho Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, San 7-1, Shinboo-Dong, Cheonan, Choongnam, 330-716, Korea +82 41 550 1973: e-mail, cho8511@dku.edu

Received 24 March 20105 April 2010 Accepted 7 April 2010

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

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in bone density and reduction of time consumed for osteogenesis by PostPlant^TM Calcium and to find out efficacy of PostPlant^TM Calcium by comparing the group prescribed with PostPlant^TM Calcium with the group without PostPlant^TM Calcium prescription.

Material and methods

The experimental group of 18 patients with 25 dental implant placement and the control group of 7 patients with 9 dental implant placement were randomly selected from the patients who visited prosthetic department of Dankook University Dental Hospital since July, 2006 (IRB Number : 20060710). The experimental group was instructed to take PostPlant^TM Calcium for 6 months after the implant surgery while the control group was instructed not to. Both experimental and control group were assigned for measurement using Osstell^TM Mentor and Periotest^® and radiographic examination was performed using specifically manufactured Aluminum Step Wedge. The results were compared and analyzed.

Results

1. According to the Osstell^TM Mentor measurement, both the experimental and control group showed increase in values as time elapses and the experimental group showed significantly higher rate of increase (P < .05). 2. According to the Periotest^® measurement, both the experimental and control group showed decrease in values as time elapses. In addition, greater decrease can be seen in the experimental group but no statistical significance was found. 3. By examining the radiographic images, both the experimental and control group showed tendency of increase in bone density. In addition, greater increase can be seen in the experimental group but no statistical significance was found.

Conclusion

Clinically, taking PostPlant^TM Calcium medicine for a long period of time after implant placement is expected for a better prognosis. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2010;48:128-34)

Keywords: PostPlant^TM Calcium, Implant stability, Bone density

REFERENCES

1.Oh KO., Kim SW., Kim JY., Ko SY., Kim HM., Baek JH., Ryoo HM., Kim JK. Effect of Rehmannia glutinosa Libosch extracts on bone metabolism. Clin Chim Acta. 2003. 334:185–95.

2.Kim HM., An CS., Jung KY., Choo YK., Park JK., Nam SY. Rehmannia glutinosa inhibits tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-1 secretion from mouse astrocytes. Pharmacol Res. 1999. 40:171–6.

3.Hazuda DJ., Strickler J., Kueppers F., Simon PL., Young PR. Processing of precursor interleukin 1 beta and inflammatory disease. J Biol Chem. 1990. 265:6318–22.

4.Stashenko P., Dewhirst FE., Peros WJ., Kent RL., Ago JM. Synergistic interactions between interleukin 1, tumor necrosis factor, and lymphotoxin in bone resorption. J Immunol. 1987. 138:1464–8.

5.Park SW., Cho IH. The effect of PRF^® on the osseointegration and stability of implant. MS thesis 2005, Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Dankook University.

6.Kang SJ., Cho IH., Shin SY. The effect of OPB-K^® on the osseointegration and stability of implant. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2007. 45:107–20.

7.Bra�nemark PI., Hansson BO., Adell R., Breine U., Lindstro¨m J., Halle ′nO., Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977. 16:1–132.

8.Albrektsson T., Jacobsson M. Bone-metal interface in osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent. 1987. 57:597–607.

9.Roodman GD. Advances in bone biology: the osteoclast. Endocr Rev. 1996. 17:308–32.

10.Masuda T., Salvi GE., Offenbacher S., Felton DA., Cooper LF. Cell and matrix reactions at titanium implants in surgically prepared rat tibiae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997. 12:472–85.

11.Jung H., Kim HJ., Hong S., Kim KD., Moon HS., Je JH., Hwu Y. Osseointegration assessment of dental implants using a synchrotron radiation imaging technique: a preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003. 18:121–6.

12.Derhami K., Wolfaardt JF., Faulkner G., Grace M. Assessment of the periotest device in baseline mobility measurements of craniofacial implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995. 10:221–9.

13.Olive ′J., Aparicio C. Periotest method as a measure of osseointe-grated oral implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:390–400.

14.Teerlinck J., Quirynen M., Darius P., van Steenberghe D. Periotest: an objective clinical diagnosis of bone apposition toward implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991. 6:55–61.

15.Huang HM., Chiu CL., Yeh CY., Lin CT., Lin LH., Lee SY. Early detection of implant healing process using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003. 14:437–43.

16.Huang HM., Lee SY., Yeh CY., Lin CT. Resonance frequency assessment of dental implant stability with various bone qualities: a numerical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002. 13:65–74.

17.Meredith N., Book K., Friberg B., Jemt T., Sennerby L. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:226–33.

18.Johansson C., Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987. 2:69–75.

19.Johansson CB., Sennerby L., Albrektsson T. A removal torque and histomorphometric study of bone tissue reactions to commercially pure titanium and Vitallium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991. 6:437–41.

20.Dhert WJ., Verheyen CC., Braak LH., de Wijn Jr., Klein CP., de Groot K., Rozing PM. A finite element analysis of the push-out test: influence of test conditions. J Biomed Mater Res. 1992. 26:119–30.

21.Meredith N., Alleyne D., Cawley P. Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996. 7:261–7.

22.Glauser R., Sennerby L., Meredith N., Re ′e A., Lundgren A., Gottlow J., Ha ¨mmerle CH. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004. 15:428–34.

23.Meredith N. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont. 1998. 11:491–501.

24.Sennerby L., Meredith N. Resonance frequency analysis: measuring implant stability and osseointegration. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998. 19:493–8. 500, 502; quiz 504.

25.Meredith N., Book K., Friberg B., Jemt T., Sennerby L. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:226–33.

26.Rasmusson L., Meredith N., Sennerby L. Measurements of stability changes of titanium implants with exposed threads subjected to barrier membrane induced bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:316–22.

27.Chai JY., Yamada J., Pang IC. In vitro consistency of the Periotest instrument. J Prosthodont. 1993. 2:9–12.

28.Derhami K., Wolfaardt JF., Faulkner G., Grace M. Assessment of the periotest device in baseline mobility measurements of craniofacial implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995. 10:221–9.

29.Bra � nemark PI., Zarb GA., Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence;1985. p. 199–209.

Table I.

Classification of implants used in this study

	R/S∗	Brå MKIII∗∗	Total
Control Group	7	2	9
Experimental Group	15	10	25

R/S∗: Replace^TM Select Tapered TiUnite Bra MKIII∗∗: Brånemark System^® MKIII TiUnite

Table II.

Diameter of implants used in 1st surgery of this study

	NP∗	RP∗	WP∗	Total
Control Group	2	4	3	9
Experimental Group	0	10	15	25

NP∗: Narrow Platform, RP∗: Regular Platform, WP∗: Wide Platform

Table III.

Length of implants used in 1st surgery of this study (Unit: mm)

	8	10	11.5	13	Total
Control Group	0	6	0	3	9
Experimental Group	1	11	5	8	25

Table IV.

Result of Independent T-test for ISQ value in Osstell^TM Mentor (Mean ± SD) (Unit: ISQ value)

	Control Group	Experimental Group	P value
After 1st Surgery	74.11 ± 4.78	74.44 ± 9.59	0.896
After 2nd Surgery	76.88 ± 5.10	78.96 ± 7.02	0.360
After 6 Months	79.00 ± 5.93	83.84 ± 4.87	0.048

Table V.

Results of Independent T-test for Periotest^® values (Mean ± SD) (Unit: PTV value)

	Control Group	Experimental Group	P value
After 1st Surgery	-4.66 ± 0.86	-5.40 ± 0.95	0.051
After 2nd Surgery	-4.88 ± 0.60	-5.48 ± 1.12	0.060
After 6 Months	-5.22 ± 0.83	-5.76 ± 0.83	0.119

Table VI.

Results of Independent T-test for bone mineral density values (Mean ± SD) (Unit: mmAl)

	Control Group	Experimental Group	P value
After 1st Surgery	4.56 ± 1.16	4.85 ± 1.24	0.535
After 1 Month	5.08 ± 1.32	5.69 ± 1.18	0.252
After 3 Months	5.84 ± 1.42	6.62 ± 1.37	0.182
After 6 Months	6.58 ± 1.65	7.59 ± 1.28	0.123

TOOLS

Similar articles