Yıl 2018, Cilt 28, Sayı 2, Sayfalar 174 - 181 2018-04-26

FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Emine ADALI [1] , Meltem Özden YÜCE [2] , Tayfun GÜNBAY [3] , Gözde ÇIPLAK [4]

24 20

Amaç: Günümüzde dental implant uygulamaları, yük- sek başarı oranı nedeniyle diş hekimliği kliniğinde rutin bir tedavi seçeneği haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; 2010-2015 yılları arasında ağız diş ve çene cerrahisi kliniğinde uygulanan farklı ticari markalara ait dental implantların başarı oranlarının geriye dönük değerlendirilmesinin yapılarak başarısızlık nedenlerini açıklayabilmektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada; 2010-2015 yılları arasında Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı’na başvuran 271 hastaya uygulanan kemik içi dental implantların sonuç- ları değerlendirildi. Kontrol seanslarında hastaların klinik ve radyolojik bulguları kaydedildi. Ayrıca; bireyle- rin yaş ve cinsiyet dağılımları, sistemik hastalıkların ve sigara kullanımının dağılımı, implant uygulaması öncesi gerçekleştirilen ek cerrahi işlemler, implantların bölge- lere ve diş çekimi sonrası uygulama zamanlarına göre dağılımı ve sayısı, implant kayıplarının dağılımı ve nedenleri değerlendirildi. Çalışmada, ağız içinde fonsiyonel ve estetik olarak devamlılığını koruyan implantlar başarılı olarak kabul edildi.

Bulgular: Bu çalışmada, toplam 271 hastaya 862 adet kemik içi dental implant uygulandı. Çalışmaya katılan hastaların %59,04’ ü herhangi bir sistemik hastalığa sahip değildi. Hastaların %15,12’ si aktif olarak sigara kullanmaktaydı. İmplant uygulamalarının %39,21’ inde uygulama öncesi ek bir cerrahi işleme ihtiyaç duyuldu. Bu çalışmada, uygulanan implantların 23 tanesi kaybedildi.

Sonuç: Çalışmada, uygulanan toplam 862 implantın 1-6 yıl arasındaki kayıp oranı %2,668 ve başarı oranı %97,332 olarak ölçüldü

Anahtar kelimeler: Dental implant, risk faktörleri, başarı

RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATİON OF THE SUCCESS RATES OF DIFFERENT DENTAL IMPLANTS

ABSTRACT

Aim: Recently, dental implant applications have become a routine treatment option in dentistry clinics due to their high success rate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success rates of different trademark dental implants applied in oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic between 2010-2015 and explain the reasons of failure.

Materials and Methods: In this study; the results of dental implants applied to 271 patients who were treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Ege University Faculty of Dentistry were evaluated. Clinical and radiological findings of the patients were recorded during the control sessions. Also; age and gender distribution of patients, distribution of systemic diseases and cigarette use, additional surgical procedures performed before implantation, distribution and number of implants according to the time of application and post-tooth extraction time, distribution of implant losses and reasons were evaluated. In this study, implants that retained their functional and aesthetic continuity in the mouth were considered successful.

Results: In this study, a total of 272 patients were treated with 862 intrabony dental implants. 59,04% of the patients participating in the study did not have any systemic disease. 15,12% of the patients were actively smoking. An additional surgical treatment was required before implantation of 39.21% of implants. In this study, 23 implants were failed.

Conclusion: In the study, the loss rate of 862 implants 1-6 years was evaluated as 2,668% and the success rate was evaluated as 97,332%.

Keywords: Dental implant; risk factors; success



Dental implant, risk faktörleri
  • 1. Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002; 28: 74-81.
  • 2. 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: 208–216.
  • 3. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990; 1: 33–40.
  • 4. 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.
  • 5. Eltas A, Dündar S, Uzun İH, Malkoç MA. Dental implant başarısının ve hasta profilinin değerlendirilmesi: retrospektif bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013; 21: 1-8.
  • 6. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Galucci GO. Success Criteria in Implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Dent Res 2012; 91: 242-8.
  • 7. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J,Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival and failure: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17: 5-15.
  • 8. Takamiya AS, Goiato MC, Gennari Filho H. Effect of smoking on the survival of dental implants. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2014; 158: 650-3.
  • 9. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 399-410.
  • 10. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11-25.
  • 11. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto Study. Part II: The prosthetic results. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 53-61.
  • 12. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 377-88.
  • 13. Balaguer-Martí JC, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez J, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Immediate bleeding complications in dental implants: a systematic review. Med Oral PatolOral Cir Bucal. 2015; 20: 231–8.
  • 14. Li KK, Varvares MA, Meara JG. Descending necrotizing mediastinitis: a complication of dental implant surgery. Head Neck. 1996; 18: 192–6.
  • 15. Sverzut AT, Stabile GA, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. The influence of tobacco on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 1004-9.
  • 16. Manor Y, Simon R, Haim D, Garfunkel A, Moses O. Dental implants in medically complex patients-a retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 701–8.
  • 17. Naujokat H, Kunzendorf B, Wiltfang J.Dental implants and diabetes mellitus—a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2016; 2: 5.
  • 18. Kayal RA, Tsatsas D, Bauer MA, Allen B, Al-Sebaei MO, Kakar S, Leone CW, Morgan EF, Gerstenfeld LC, Einhorn TA, Graves DT. Diminished bone formation during diabetic fracture healing is related to the premature resorption of cartilage associated with increased osteoclast activity. J Bone Miner Res 2007; 22: 560–8.
  • 19. Santana RB, Xu L, Chase HB, Amar S, Graves DT, Trackman PC. A role for advanced glycation end products in diminished bone healing in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2003; 52: 1502–10.
  • 20. Oikarinen K, Raustia AM, Hartikainen M. General and local contraindications for endosseal implants—an epidemiological panoramic radiograph study in 65-year-old subjects. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995; 23: 114–8.
  • 21. Oates TW, Huynh-Ba G, Vargas A, Alexan- der P, Feine J. A critical review of diabetes, glycemic control, and dental implant therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24: 117–27.
  • 22. Moraschini V, Barboza ES, Peixoto GA. The impact of diabetes on dental implant failure: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 1237-45.
  • 23. Hwang D, Wang HL. Medical contraindications to implant therapy. Part II. Relative contraindications. Implant Dent. 2007; 16: 13–23.
  • 24. Gómez-de Diego R, Mang-de la Rosa Mdel R, Romero-Pérez MJ, Cutando-Soriano A, López-Valverde-Centeno A. Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2014; 19: 483–9.
  • 25. Mozzati M, Arata V, Giacomello M, Del Fabbro M, Gallesio G, Mortellaro C, Bergamasco L. Failure risk estimates after dental implants placement associated with plasma rich in growth factor-Endoret in osteoporotic women under bisphosphonate therapy. J Craniofac Surg. 2015; 26: 749–755
  • 26. Vohra F, Al-Rifaiy MQ, Almas K, Javed F. Efficacy of systemic bisphosphonate delivery on osseointegration of implants under osteoporotic conditions: lessons from animal studies. Arch Oral Biol. 20014; 59: 912–20.
  • 27. Diz P, Scully C, Sanz M. Dental implants in the medically compromised patient. J Dent. 2013; 41: 195-206. 28. Scully C. Medical problems in dentistry. 6th ed. London: Elsevier; 2010; 256.
  • 29. Renvert S, Aghazadeh A, Hallström H, Persson GR. Factors related to peri-implantitis—a retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 522–9.
  • 30. Abt E. Smoking increases dental implant failures. Evid Based Dent 2009; 10: 79–80.
  • 31. Clementini M, Rossetti PH, Penarrocha D, Micarelli C, Bonachela WC, Canullo L. Systemic risk factors for periimplant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 43: 323-34.
  • 32. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43: 487-98. 33. Twito D, Sade P.The effect of cigarette smoking habits on the outcome of dental implant treatment. Peer J. 2014; 2: 546.
  • 34. Ma L, Zwahlen RA, Zheng LW, Sham MH. Influence of nicotine on the biological activity of rabbit osteoblasts. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2011; 22: 338–42.
  • 35. Deng ZL, Sharff KA, Tang N, Song WX, Luo J, Luo X, Chen J, Bennett E, Reid R, Manning D, Xue A, Montag AG, Luu HH, Haydon RC, He TC. Regulation of osteogenic differentiation during skeletal development. Frontiers in Bioscience 2008; 13: 2001–21.
  • 36. Ma L, Zheng LW, Sham MH, Cheung LK. Uncoupled angiogenesis and osteogenesis in nicotine-compromised bone healing. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2010; 25: 1305–13.
  • 37. Wang Y, Wan C, Deng L, Liu X, Cao X, Gilbert SR, Bouxsein ML, Faugere MC, Guldberg RE, Gerstenfeld LC, Haase VH, Johnson RS, Schipani E, Clemens TL. The hypoxia-inducible factor alpha pathway couples angiogenesis to osteogenesis during skeletal development. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2007; 117: 1616–26.
  • 38. Evian CI, Emling R, Rosenberg ES, Waasdorp JA, Halpern W, Shah S, Garcia M. Retrospective analysis of implant survival and the influence of periodontal disease and immediate placement on long-term results. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2004; 19: 393–8.
  • 39. Artzi Z, Kohen J, Carmeli G, Karmon B, Lor A, Ormianer Z. The efficacy of full-arch immediately restored implant-supported reconstructions in extraction and healed sites: a 36-month retrospective evaluation. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010; 25: 329–35.
  • 40. Pen arrocha-Diago M, Demarchi CL, Maestre-Ferrin L, Carrillo C, Pen arrocha-Oltra D, Pen arrocha-Diago MA. A retrospective comparison of 1,022 implants: immediate versus nonimmediate. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2012; 27: 421–7.
  • 41. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43: 16-41.
  • 42. Soydan SS, Cubuk S, Oguz Y, Uckan S. Are success and survival rates of early implant placement higher than immediate implant placement? Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013; 42: 511–5.
  • 43. Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Peled M, Machtei EE. Immediate and delayed restoration of dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients: 1-year results. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2007; 22: 423–9.
  • 44. Deng F, Zhang H, Zhang H, Shao H, He Q, Zhang P. A comparison of clinical outcomes for implants placed in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites in periodontally compromised patients: a 1-year follow-up report. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2010; 25: 1036–40.
  • 45. Busenlechner D, Fürhauser R, Haas R, Watzek G, Mailath G, Pommer B. Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2014; 44: 102-8.
  • 46. De Moraes PH, Olate S, Lauria A, Asprino L, de Moraes M, de Albergaria-Barbosa JR. 8-10 year follow-up survival of dental implants in maxilla with or without autogenous bone graft reconstruction. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8: 19282-9.
  • 47. Beretta M, Poli PP, Grossi GB, Pieroni S, Maiorana C. Long-term survival rate of implants placed in conjunction with 246 sinus floor elevation procedures: Results of a 15-year retrospective study. J Dent. 2015; 43: 78-86.
  • 48. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Is Alveolar Ridge Split a Risk Factor for Implant Survival? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74: 2182-91.
  • 49. Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Cañaveral-Cavero E, de Dios Luna-del Castillo J, Vallecillo-Capilla M. Risk factors associated with early implant failure: A 5-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 150-5.
  • 50. Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, Van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 610-7.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular Sağlık Bilimleri
Dergi Bölümü Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Yazar: Emine ADALI
E-posta: emineadali88@windowslive.com

Yazar: Meltem Özden YÜCE
E-posta: emineadali88@windowslive.com

Yazar: Tayfun GÜNBAY
E-posta: emineadali88@windowslive.com

Yazar: Gözde ÇIPLAK
E-posta: emineadali88@windowslive.com

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ataunidfd418844, journal = {Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {1300-9044}, address = {Atatürk Üniversitesi}, year = {2018}, volume = {28}, pages = {174 - 181}, doi = {10.17567/ataunidfd.418844}, title = {FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ}, key = {cite}, author = {GÜNBAY, Tayfun and YÜCE, Meltem Özden and ÇIPLAK, Gözde and ADALI, Emine} }
APA ADALI, E , YÜCE, M , GÜNBAY, T , ÇIPLAK, G . (2018). FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 174-181. DOI: 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844
MLA ADALI, E , YÜCE, M , GÜNBAY, T , ÇIPLAK, G . "FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ". Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 (2018): 174-181 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/ataunidfd/issue/36765/418844>
Chicago ADALI, E , YÜCE, M , GÜNBAY, T , ÇIPLAK, G . "FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ". Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 (2018): 174-181
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ AU - Emine ADALI , Meltem Özden YÜCE , Tayfun GÜNBAY , Gözde ÇIPLAK Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844 DO - 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844 T2 - Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 174 EP - 181 VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 1300-9044- M3 - doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.418844 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ %A Emine ADALI , Meltem Özden YÜCE , Tayfun GÜNBAY , Gözde ÇIPLAK %T FARKLI DENTAL İMPLANTLARIN BAŞARI ORANLARININ GERİYE DÖNÜK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ %D 2018 %J Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi %P 1300-9044- %V 28 %N 2 %R doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844 %U 10.17567/ataunidfd.418844