Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.51(4) > 1034753

TOOLS
Jung, Paeng, Cho, and Lee: The study on success rate of single implant replacing the mandibular first and second molars
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2013;51(4):252-260.

Published online: NaN October 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2013.51.4.252

The study on success rate of single implant replacing the mandibular first and second molars

Taek-Gyun Jung, DDS1, Joon-Young Paeng, DDS, PhD1, Jin-Hyun Cho, DDS, PhD2, Sang-Han Lee, DDS, PhD1, ∗

1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

2Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Sang-Han Lee Department of Denistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook University, 2175 Dalgubeoldae-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 700-705, Korea +82 53 600 7554: e-mail, shale@knu.ac.kr

Received 30 July 201319 September 2013       Accepted 1 October 2013

Copyright © 2013 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

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

After the introduction of concept of osteointegration, dental implantology have been successful procedure in the dental field. Recently, it has shown successful results when used to restore single tooth missing. Considering the difference in bone quality of the mandible and maxilla, and the increased occlusal force in the posterior region, the success rates in each region may be different. In this study, success rates of single implants placed in the mandibular first and second molar areas were analyzed.

Materials and methods

The subjects were patients (284 patients, 308 implants) who had been operated with single implant installation from 2002 to 2009 in seven dental clinics in Daegu city. One hundred sixty eight implants were placed in the mandibular 1st molar and 140 implants were placed in the mandibular 2nd molar. They were analyzed according to implant site, age, sex, length and diameter.

Results

The survival rates of single implant of this study were 97.6% in the mandibular 1st molar and 92.9% in the mandibular 2nd molar. In the mandibular 1st molar, 4 implants were failed. In the mandibular, 2nd molar, 10 implants were failed.

Conclusion

The restoration of the mandibular 1st molar using single implant was found to be clinically acceptable treatment and showed higher survival rate than mandibular 2nd molar single implant. Single implant in mandibular 2nd molar needs careful consideration of poor bone quality, risk of overloading and anatomical structure of the mandible. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2013;51:252-60)

Keywords: Single implant, Mandibular molar, Survival rate

REFERENCES

1.Bra�nemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 50:399–410.
2.Adell R., Eriksson B., Lekholm U., Bra�nemark PI., Jemt T. Longterm follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:347–59.
3.Jemt T., Lekholm U., Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989. 4:211–7.
4.Becker W., Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:51–5.
crossref
5.Cordioli G., Castagna S., Consolati E. Single-tooth implant rehabilitation: a retrospective study of 67 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 1994. 7:525–31.
6.Gunne J., Jemt T., Linde′n B. Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prostheses after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont. 1994. 7:143–8.
7.Haas R., Mensdorff-Pouilly N., Mailath G., Watzek G. Bra®nemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 73:274–9.
8.Jemt T., Laney WR., Harris D., Henry PJ., Krogh PH Jr., Polizzi G., Zarb GA., Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991. 6:29–36.
9.Sharifi MN., Pang IC., Chai J. Alternative restorative techniques of the CeraOne single-tooth abutment: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994. 9:235–8.
10.Sullivan DY. Wide implants for wide teeth. Dent Econ. 1994. 84:82–3.
11.Rangert B., Krogh PH., Langer B., Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995. 10:326–34.
12.Schwartz-Arad D., Samet N., Samet N. Single tooth replacement of missing molars: a retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol. 1999. 70:449–54.
crossref
13.Albrektsson T., Zarb G., Worthington P., Eriksson AR. The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986. 1:11–25.
14.Zarb GA., Albrektsson T. Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:641.
15.van Steenberghe D., Quirynen M., Naert I. Survival and success rates with oral endosseous implants. In proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Periodontalogy. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing Co.;1999. p. 242–54.
16.Yurkstas AA. The effect of missing teeth on masticatory performance and efficiency. J Prosthet Dent. 1954. 4:120–3.
crossref
17.Rosenberg ES., Cho SC., Elian N., Jalbout ZN., Froum S., Evian CI. A comparison of characteristics of implant failure and survival in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:873–9.
18.Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 2nd ed.Mosby;1999. p. 21–32.
19.Balshi TJ., Hernandez RE., Pryszlak MC., Rangert B. A comparative study of one implant versus two replacing a single molar. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996. 11:372–8.
crossref
20.Schwartz-Arad D., Samet N., Samet N. Single tooth replacement of missing molars: a retrospective study of 78 implants. J Periodontol. 1999. 70:449–54.
crossref
21.Romanos GE., Nentwig GH. Single molar replacement with a progressive thread design implant system: a retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000. 15:831–6.
22.Balshi TJ., Wolfinger GJ. Two-implant-supported single molar replacement: interdental space requirements and comparison to alternative options. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997. 17:426–35.
23.Wheeler RC. A textbook of dental anatomy and physiology. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.;1950. p. 215–43.
24.Lindh T., Gunne J., Tillberg A., Molin M. A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:80–90.
crossref
25.Weinberg LA. The biomechanics of force distribution in implant-supported prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993. 8:19–31.
26.Youssef RE., Throckmorton GS., Ellis E 3rd., Sinn DP. Comparison of habitual masticatory patterns in men and women using a custom computer program. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 78:179–86.
crossref
27.Cooper L., Felton DA., Kugelberg CF., Ellner S., Chaffee N., Molina AL., Moriarty JD., Paquette D., Palmqvist U. A multicenter 12-month evaluation of single-tooth implants restored 3 weeks after 1-stage surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001. 16:182–92.
28.Ericsson I., Randow K., Nilner K., Petersson A. Some clinical and radiographical features of submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:422–6.
crossref
29.Davarpanah M., Martinez H., Celletti R., Alcoforado G., Tecucianu JF., Etienne D. Osseotite implant: 3-year prospective multicenter evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001. 3:111–8.
crossref
30.Borchers L., Reichart P. Three-dimensional stress distribution around a dental implant at different stages of interface development. J Dent Res. 1983. 62:155–9.
crossref
31.Friberg B., Ekestubbe A., Sennerby L. Clinical outcome of Bra®nemark System implants of various diameters: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002. 17:671–7.
32.Ivanoff CJ., Gro¨ndahl K., Sennerby L., Bergstro¨m C., Lekholm U. Influence of variations in implant diameters: a 3- to 5-year retrospective clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999. 14:173–80.
33.Eckert SE., Meraw SJ., Weaver AL., Lohse CM. Early experience with Wide-Platform Mk II implants. Part I: Implant survival. Part II: Evaluation of risk factors involving implant survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001. 16:208–16.
34.das Neves FD., Fones D., Bernardes SR., do Prado CJ., Neto AJ. Short implants-an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006. 21:86–93.
crossref
35.Griffin TJ., Cheung WS. The use of short, wide implants in posterior areas with reduced bone height: a retrospective investigation. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:139–44.
crossref
36.Teixeira ER., Wadamoto M., Akagawa Y., Kimoto T. Clinical application of short hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants to the posterior mandible: a five-year survival study. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 78:166–71.
crossref
37.das Neves FD., Fones D., Bernardes SR., do Prado CJ., Neto AJ. Short implants-an analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006. 21:86–93.
crossref
38.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 multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:161–72.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Survival rate analysis.
jkap-51-252f1.tif
Table 1.
Distribution of implant according to age and sex
Age Mn. 1st molar Mn. 2nd molar Total
Male Female Male Female
10 - 19 2 3 - - 5
20 - 29 6 12 3 2 23
30 - 39 24 11 18 10 63
40 - 49 28 25 26 19 98
50 - 59 19 15 19 21 74
60 - 69 5 7 12 6 30
70 - 79 6 5 2 2 15
Total 90 78 80 60 308
Table 2.
Distribution of implant according to length and diameter
  Implant diameter Implant length (mm) Total
6 8 10 12
Mn. 1st molar Below 3.9 - 2 3 4 9
  4.0 - 4.9 1 20 98 35 154
  Over 5.0 - 2 2 1 5
Mn. 2nd molar Below 3.9 - - 2 2 4
  4.0 - 4.9 3 22 94 10 129
  Over 5.0 - 2 5 - 7
Total   4 48 204 52 308
Table 3.
Survival rate according to implant site and manufacturer
  1st molar 2nd molar
  No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%)
s-Clean® 111 4 96.4 81 8 90.1
Straumann® 57 0 100 59 2 96.6
Total 168 4 97.6 140 10 92.9
Table 4.
Survival rate of implant site according to sex
  Male Female
  No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%)
1st molar 90 2 97.8 78 2 97.4
2nd molar 80 6 92.5 60 4 93.3
Total 170 8 95.3 138 6 95.7
Table 5.
Survival rate of implant site according to age
Age 1st molar 2nd molar
No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%)
10 - 19 5 0 100 0 0 -
20 - 29 18 0 100 5 0 100
30 - 39 35 0 100 28 3 89.3
40 - 49 53 2 96.2 45 1 97.8
50 - 59 34 1 97.1 40 4 90.0
60 - 59 12 1 91.7 18 2 88.9
70 - 79 11 0 100 4 0 100
Total 168 4 97.6 140 10 92.9
Table 6.
Survival rate of implant site according to surgical method
  1 Stage 2 Stage
No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants s Survival rate (%)
1st molar 165 4 97.6 3 0 100
2nd molar 134 7 94.8 6 3 50
Total 299 11 96.3 9 3 66.7
Table 7.
Survival rate of implant site according to diameter of implant
Diameter (mm) 1st molar 2nd molar
No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%)
Below 3.9 9 0 100 4 0 100
4.0 - 4.9 154 4 97.4 129 9 93.0
Over 5.0 5 0 100 7 1 85.7
Total 168 4 97.6 140 10 92.9
Table 8.
Survival rate of implant site according to length of implant
Length (mm) 1st molar 2nd molar
No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%) No. of implants No. of failed implants Survival rate (%)
6 1 0 100 3 1 66.7
8 24 1 95.8 24 3 87.5
10 103 2 98.1 101 5 95.0
12 40 1 97.5 12 1 92.7
Total 168 4 97.6 140 10 92.9
Table 9.
Failed implants analysis
No. Site Sex Age Implant Time of insertion Period (month) Method of Surgery Reason of failure
Manufacture Diameter/Length (mm)
1 #46 F 48 s-Clean® 4.3/10 2007.03 10 1-stage Mob
2 #36 M 55 s-Clean® 4.3/10 2007.11 3 1-stage Mob
3 #46 F 63 s-Clean® 4.3/8 2008.11 2 1-stage Mob
4 #46 M 42 s-Clean® 4.8/12 2008.12 8 1-stage Peri
5 #37 F 54 s-Clean® 4.8/10 2005.09 27 1-stage Mob
6 #37 M 69 s-Clean® 4.8/10 2005.10 10 1-stage Peri
7 #37 M 57 Strauman® 4.8/6 2006.02 5 2-stage Mob
8 #37 F 39 Strauman® 4.1/10 2006.06 11 2-stage Peri
9 #37 F 34 s-Clean® 4.8/12 2007.05 1 1-stage Peri
10 #37 M 52 s-Clean® 4.3/8 2007.09 3 1-stage Mob
11 #47 M 54 s-Clean® 5.5/10 2007.09 3 2-stage Num
12 #37 M 36 s-Clean® 4.8/8 2007.12 1 1-stage Mob
13 #37 F 63 s-Clean® 4.3/10 2008.05 4 1-stage Mob
14 #47 M 46 s-Clean® 4.8/8 2008.08 2 1-stage Num

∗ Mob: Implant mobility, Num: Numbness, Peri: Peri-implantitis, Period: Month of removal after implant insertion.

TOOLS
Similar articles