PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture of implant component behavior of external and internal type of implants to suggest directions for successful implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received WARANTEC implan...
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture of implant component behavior of external and internal type of implants to suggest directions for successful implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received WARANTEC implants at Seoul National University Dental Hospital from February 2002 to January 2014 for 12 years. Total number of implants was 1,289 and an average of 3.2 implants was installed per patient. Information about abutment connection type, implant locations, platform sizes was collected with presence of implant component fractures and their managements. SPSS statistics software (version 24.0, IBM) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS. Overall fracture was significantly more frequent in internal type. The most frequently fractured component was abutment in internal type implants, and screw fracture occurred most frequently in external type. Analyzing by fractured components, screw fracture was the most frequent in the maxillary anterior region and the most abutment fracture occurred in the maxillary posterior region and screw fractures occurred more frequently in NP (narrow platform) and abutment fractures occurred more frequently in RP (regular platform). CONCLUSION. In external type, screw fracture occurred most frequently, especially in the maxillary anterior region, and in internal type, abutment fracture occurred frequently in the posterior region. placement of an external type implant rather than an internal type is recommended for the posterior region where abutment fractures frequently occur.
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture of implant component behavior of external and internal type of implants to suggest directions for successful implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received WARANTEC implants at Seoul National University Dental Hospital from February 2002 to January 2014 for 12 years. Total number of implants was 1,289 and an average of 3.2 implants was installed per patient. Information about abutment connection type, implant locations, platform sizes was collected with presence of implant component fractures and their managements. SPSS statistics software (version 24.0, IBM) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS. Overall fracture was significantly more frequent in internal type. The most frequently fractured component was abutment in internal type implants, and screw fracture occurred most frequently in external type. Analyzing by fractured components, screw fracture was the most frequent in the maxillary anterior region and the most abutment fracture occurred in the maxillary posterior region and screw fractures occurred more frequently in NP (narrow platform) and abutment fractures occurred more frequently in RP (regular platform). CONCLUSION. In external type, screw fracture occurred most frequently, especially in the maxillary anterior region, and in internal type, abutment fracture occurred frequently in the posterior region. placement of an external type implant rather than an internal type is recommended for the posterior region where abutment fractures frequently occur.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Information about abutment connection type (internal or external), implant locations, platform sizes was collected with presence of implant component fractures and their managements (Table 1). The information about implant component fractures was divided into three types: screw fractures, abutment fractures, and fixture fractures. The management of fractures was classified as screw replacement, prosthesis refabrication, and fixture removal.
The purpose of this study was to predict the prognosis of implants and to suggest directions for successful implant treatment by analyzing the factors affecting the fracture of implant components including abutment connection type, implant location and implant platform size.
대상 데이터
A total of 1,289 implants were placed in 406 patients during investigation period. 799 implants had external type abutment connection (62.
Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received one or more WARANTEC implants at Seoul National University Dental Hospital from February 2002 to January 2014 for 12 years and the following cases were excluded: i) implants failed in osseointegration, ii) implant placement after jaw resection and reconstruction, iii) the opposite arch was complete denture, iv) implant assisted over denture, v) insufficient clinical chart recording, vi) patients who have not visited since 2012. Data collection included 406 patients (205 males, 201 females), ranging in age from 21 to 94 years (mean 64.6 years, SD 11.5). Total number of implants was 1,289 and an average of 3.
성능/효과
0%). 139 implants were placed in the maxillary anterior region (10.8%), 641 implants in the maxillary posterior region (49.7%), 50 implants in the mandibular anterior region (3.9%), and 449 implants in the mandibular posterior region (35.6%). According to the platform size, 129 implants (10.
Depending on the implant location, in internal types, there was no significant relationship between the implant location and each component fracture rates, however, in external types, there was a significant difference in total fracture rate (P = .007 < .05) and screw fracture (P = .003 < .05) in maxillary anterior region was significantly higher (5.8%).
6%). In internal type implants, 53 components fractures occurred (10.8%): 8 screw fractures (1.6%), 40 abutment fractures (8.2%), and 5 fixture fracture (1.0%), and in external type implants, 19 components fractures occurred (2.4%): 16 screw fractures (2.0%), 1 abutment fracture (0.1%), and 2 fixture fractures (0.3%) (Table 2).
참고문헌 (18)
1 Laney WR Jemt T Harris D Henry PJ Krogh PH Polizzi G Zarb GA Herrmann I Osseointegrated implants for singletooth replacement: progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994 9 49 54 8150512
4 Brägger U Aeschlimann S Bürgin W Hämmerle CH Lang NP Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function Clin Oral Implants Res 2001 12 26 34 11168268
5 Luterbacher S Fourmousis I Lang NP Brägger U Fractured prosthetic abutments in osseointegrated implants: a technical complication to cope with Clin Oral Implants Res 2000 11 163 170 11168207
6 Binon PP Implants and components: entering the new millennium Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 15 76 94 10697942
7 Adell R Lekholm U Rockler B Brånemark PI A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw Int J Oral Surg 1981 10 387 416 6809663
8 Naert I Quirynen M van Steenberghe D Darius P A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects J Prosthet Dent 1992 68 949 956 1494126
9 Rangert B Krogh PH Langer B Van Roekel N Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 10 326 334 7615329
10 Tolman DE Laney WR Tissue-integrated prosthesis complications Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992 7 477 484 1299643
11 Sailer I Mühlemann S Zwahlen M Hämmerle CH Schneider D Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates Clin Oral Implants Res 2012 23 163 201 23062142
12 Theoharidou A Petridis HP Tzannas K Garefis P Abutment screw loosening in single-implant restorations: a systematic review Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008 23 681 690 18807565
13 Al Jabbari YS Fournelle R Ziebert G Toth J Iacopino AM Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 1: Characterization of adhesive wear and structure of retaining screws J Prosthodont 2008 17 168 180 18005336
14 Al Jabbari Y Fournelle R Ziebert G Toth J Iacopino A Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 2: Metallurgical and microhardness analysis J Prosthodont 2008 17 181 191 18047489
15 Al Jabbari YS Fournelle R Ziebert G Toth J Iacopino AM Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 3: Preload and tensile fracture load testing J Prosthodont 2008 17 192 200 18205737
16 Al Jabbari YS Fournelle R Ziebert G Toth J Iacopino AM Mechanical behavior and failure analysis of prosthetic retaining screws after long-term use in vivo. Part 4: Failure analysis of 10 fractured retaining screws retrieved from three patients J Prosthodont 2008 17 201 210 18205736
17 Rangert B Krogh PH Langer B Van Roekel N Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995 10 326 334 7615329
18 Morgan MJ James DF Pilliar RM Fractures of the fixture component of an osseointegrated implant Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993 8 409 414 8270309
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.