Success rate and marginal bone loss of Osstem USII plus implants; Short term clinical study

Sun-Keun Kim; Jee-Hwan Kim; Keun-Woo Lee; Kyoo-Sung Cho; Dong-Hoo Han

doi:10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.206

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.49(3) > 1034664

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Kim, Lee, Cho, and Han: Success rate and marginal bone loss of Osstem USII plus implants; Short term clinical study

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49(3):206-213.

Published online: 18 December 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.3.206

Success rate and marginal bone loss of Osstem USII plus implants; Short term clinical study

Sun-Keun Kim, DDS, MSD¹, Jee-Hwan Kim, MSD, DDS, PhD¹, Keun-Woo Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD¹, Kyoo-Sung Cho, MSD, DDS, PhD², Dong-Hoo Han, DDS, MSD, PhD^1,^∗

^¹Department of Prosthodontics

^²Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Dong-Hoo Han Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea +82 2 2228 3163: e-mail donghoohan@yuhs.ac

Received 15 March 201119 April 2011 Accepted 22 June 2011

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 clinical value of Osstem^® USII plus system implants. Clinical and radiographic data were analyzed for 88 implants placed and functionally loaded for a 12 month period at the Yonsei University Dental Hospital.

Materials and Method

Based on the patient's medical records, clinical factors and their effects on implant marginal bone resorption, distribution and survival rate were analyzed. The marginal bone loss was evaluated at implant placement and during a 6 to 12 months functional loading period. The independent sample t-test was used to evaluate the interrelationship between the factors (α =0.05), and one way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the amount of marginal bone resorption.

Results

The cumulative survival rate for 88 implants was 100%. The marginal bone resorption from implant placement to prosthetic delivery was 0.24 mm and the average marginal bone resorption from prosthetic delivery to 12 months of functional loading was 0.19 mm. The total average bone resorption from implant placement to 12 months of functional loading was 0.43 mm. There were no statistically differences in the amount of marginal bone resorption when implants were placed in the maxilla or the mandible (P>.05), however, implants placed in the posterior areas showed significantly more marginal bone loss than those placed in the anterior areas (P<.05).

Conclusion

Based on these results, the short term clinical success rate of RBM surface treated external connection domestic implants showed satisfactory results and the marginal bone loss was in accord with the success criteria of dental implants. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49:206-13)

Keywords: RBM surface, External connection, Survival rate, Marginal bone loss

REFERENCES

1.Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Branemark 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. Long-term 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, et al. 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. Long-term evaluation of 282 implants in maxillary and mandibular molar positions: a prospective study. J Periodontol. 1999. 70:896–901.

5.Bahat O. Branemark 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.Kim SG., Oh MS., Kim YK., Oh HK., Choi GL., Oh YH. Multicenter retrospective clinical study of Osstem USII implant system in complete edentulous patients. Implantology. 2007. 11:12–21.

7.Kim YK., Yun PY., Kwon MJ. Short-term retrospective clinical Study of Osstem. GS II, US III, SS III Implants. Implantology. 2008. 12:12–22.

8.Krennmair G., Schmidinger S., Waldenberger O. Single-tooth replacement with the Frialit-2 system: a retrospective clinical analysis of 146 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:78–85.

9.Romeo E., Lops D., Margutti E., Ghisolfi M., Chiapasco M., Vogel G. Long-term 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.

10.Wennstro ¨m JL., Ekestubbe A., Gro ¨ndahl K., Karlsson S., Lindhe J. Implant-supported single-tooth restorations: a 5-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2005. 32:567–74.

11.Kim JH., Jung MK., Moon HS., Han DH. The influence of Collar design on peri-implant marginal bone tissue. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2008. 46:53–64.

12.Albrektsson T., Isidor F. Consensus report of session IV. In: Lang NP, Karring T. Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology. London: Quintessence;1993. p. 365–9.

13.Kim SH., Kim SJ., Lee KW., Han DH. The effects of local factors on the survival of dental implants: A 19-year retrospective study. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2010. 48:28–40.

14.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.

15.Kim YK., Yun PY., Son DI., Kim BS., Hwang JW. Analysis of clinical application of Osstem(R) (Korea) implant system for 6 years. Implantology. 2006. 10:56–65.

16.Oh TJ., Yoon J., Misch CE., Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol. 2002. 73:322–33.

17.strand P., Engquist B., Dahlgren S., Gro ¨ndahl K., Engquist E., Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Branemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004. 15:413–20.

18.Peñarrocha M., Palomar M., Sanchis JM., Guarinos J., Balaguer J. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location, and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:861–7.

19.Hwang JW., Kim YK. Retrospective study of Implantium(R) dental implants: clinical and radiographic results of 22 months. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005. 9:30–40.

20.Cho JY., Kim YJ., Yu MG., Kook MS., Oh HK., Park HJ. The effect of surface treatment of the cervical area of implant on bone regeneration in mini-pig. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008. 34:285–92.

21.Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont. 1998. 11:391–401.

22.Won MK., Park CJ., Chang KS., Kim CW., Kim YS., Isa ZM., Ariffin YT. An experimental study of newly designed implant with RBM surface in the rabbit tibia: resonance frequency analysis and removal torque study. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2003. 41:720–31.

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

24.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.

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. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998. 13:204–11.

27.Lindquist LW., Carlsson GE., Jemt T. A prospective 15-year followup study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996. 7:329–36.

28.Weber HP., Crohin CC., Fiorellini JP. A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:144–53.

29.Tolstunov L. Implant zones of the jaws: implant location and related success rate. J Oral Implantol. 2007. 33:211–20.

Fig. 1.

Osstem^® USII plus implant (Osstem Co., Seoul, Korea).

Fig. 2.

References used to measure actual marginal bone loss. a: top level of implant platform, b: implant to marginal bone contact level, c: inter-thread distance of three threads.

Table 1.

Number of implants placed according to implant length and diameter

	3.75 mm	4 mm	5 mm	5.5 mm	Total
7 mm		2			2
8.5 mm		4	3	1	8
10 mm	1	10	11	1	23
11.5 mm		22	18		40
13 mm		9	6		15
Total	1	47	38	2	88

Table 2.

Numbers of implants placed according to location in arch

	Maxilla	Mandible	Total
Anterior	7	5	12
Premolar	16	13	29
Molar	22	25	47
Total	45	43	88

Table 3.

Marginal bone loss around implants according to observation period

	Marginal bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± ± SD)
	Mesial	Distal	Total	t-test P value
Sur-B	0.25 ± 0.48	0.24 ± 0.41	0.24 ± 0.40	.697
B-12 month	0.20 ± 0.50	0.18 ± 0.38	0.19 ± 0.43	.756
Sur-12 month	0.44 ± 0.67	0.42 ± 0.53	0.43 ± 0.56	.439

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading), B-12 month: period from baseline to 12 month, Sur-12 month: period from surgery to 12 month post baseline, SD: standard deviation.

Table 4.

Distribution of implants by bone resorption

Amount of bone resorption (mm)	Number of implants
< 0.2	40
0.3	10
0.4	3
0.5	9
0.6	5
0.7	3
0.8	2
0.9	1
1	2
1.2	7
1.5	4
2	1
3	1

Table 5.

Comparison of marginal bone loss between male and female

	Gender	Implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t-test P value
Sur-B	Male	30	0.30 ± 0.40
	Female	58	0.22 ± 0.41	.270
B-12 month	Male	30	0.23 ± 0.43
	Female	58	0.17 ± 0.43	.798
Sur-12 months	Male	30	0.52 ± 0.52
	Female	58	0.38 ± 0.58	.623

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading), B-12 months: period from baseline to 12 months, Sur-12 months: period from surgery to 12 months post baseline, SD: standard deviation.

Table 6.

Comparison of marginal bone loss according to region in arch

	Location	Implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	t-test P value
Sur-B	Anterior	12	0.48 ± 0.45
	Posterior	76	0.20 ± 0.40	0.002
B-12 months	Anterior	12	0.07 ± 0.22
	Posterior	76	0.21 ± 0.43	0.658
Sur-12 months	Anterior	12	0.54 ± 0.83
	Posterior	76	0.41 ± 0.51	0.005

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading), B-12 months: period from baseline to 12 months, Sur-12 months: period from surgery to 12 months post baseline, SD: standard deviation.

Table 7.

Comparison of marginal bone loss between maxilla and mandible

	Location	Implants observed	Bone resorption (mm) (Mean ± SD)	P value
Sur-B	Maxilla	45	0.24 ± 0.41
	Mandible	43	0.25 ± 0.41	.706
B-12 months	Maxilla	45	0.19 ± 0.42
	Mandible	43	0.19 ± 0.43	.426
Sur-12 months	Maxilla	45	0.43 ± 0.68
	Mandible	43	0.44 ± 0.41	.118

Sur-B: period from surgery to baseline (functional loading), B-12 months: period from baseline to 12 months, Sur-12 months: period from surgery to 12 months post baseline, SD: standard deviation.

TOOLS

Similar articles