You are here

Home » Content

DAYANAK-İMPLANT BİRLEŞME TİPİNİN İMPLANT DESTEKLİ SABİT RESTORASYONLARIN KLİ NİK BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ KONUSUNDA BİR DERLEME

THE EFFECT OF IMPLANT-ABUTMENT CONNECTION TYPE TO THE CLINICAL SUCCESSOF IMPLANT SUPPORTED FIX RESTORATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Implant dentistry became a treatment of choice for the rehabilitation of tooth loss and edentulism after developments in dental implant technology. There may be various problems associated with implants and superstructure. The most common problem in implant supported fixed restoration is loosening of abutment screw. Loose abutment may cause serious problems such as implant fractures due to increase in torsional and moment forces. There are two types of implants, internal connection (internal hex) and external connection (external hex), according to their connection system to superstucture. These two dissimilar connection mechanisms create different stress distribution and stress concentrations and this difference cause problems peculiar to the connection system. The aim of this review is to explain the different mechanical behaviors of the implant-abutment connection systems of the implants to the superstructure and to give the dentist, knowledge of predicting the problems likely to face in clinic related with the connection system chosen.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Diş eksikliklerinin implant ile tedavisi, implant teknolojisindeki gelişmelerle beraber, diş hekimlerinin sıklıkla başvurduğu tedavi seçeneklerinden biri olmuştur. İmplant destekli restorasyonlarda, implant veya üst yapılarda farklı problemler meydana gelebilir. İmplant destekli sabit restorasyonlarda en sık karşılaşılan problem dayanak vida gevşemesidir. Gevşeyen vida, implanta iletilen devrilme ve burkma kuvvetlerinin artmasına ve implant kırılmalarına kadar giden ciddi problemlere neden olur. İmplant ve üst yapının bağlanma prensibine göre iki farklı implant tipi mevcuttur. İnternal bağlantılı implantlar ve external bağlantılı implantlar. Bu iki bağlantı tipi farklı mekanik davranışlar göstererek bağlantı tipine özgü başarısızlık görülmesine sebep olur. Bu derlemenin amacı, bağlantı tiplerinin farklı mekanik davranışlarını açıklamak ve hekime seçtiği implant- dayanak bağlantı tipine göre hangi problemler ile karşılaşabileceği öngörüsünü kazandırmaktır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dayanak-implant-birlesme-tipinin-implant-destekli-sabit-restorasyonlarin-kli-nik-basarisina-etkisi-konusunda-bir-derleme.pdf
  • 2
131-137
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Misch CE Contemporary implant Dentistry, 2nd ed, Mosby, St.Louis Missouri, 1999;3-12.
2. Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, Zarb GA, Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9(1):49-54.
3. Henry PJ, Rosenberg IR, Bills IG, Chan RW, Cohen AC, Halliday KG, Kozeniauskas JA. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement in general practice: a 1-year report from a multicentre prospective study Aust Dent J. 1995;40(3):173-81.
4. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, Zarb GA, Herrmann I. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(4):450-5.
5. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
1994;9(2):179-83.
6. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent.
1990;64(2):185-94.
7. Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(5):581-5.
8. Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2008;19(2):119-30.
9. Misch CE, Dental implant Prosthetics, 1st ed, Mosby, St.Louis Missouri, 2005 ;32-41
10. Cibirka RM, Nelson SK, Lang BR, Rueggeberg FA Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing. J Prosthet Dent.
2001;85(3):268-75.
11. Maeda Y, Satoh T, Sogo M. In vitro differences of stress concentrations for internal and external hex implant-abutment connections: a short communication. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(1):75-8.
12. Aboyoussef H, Weiner S, Ehrenberg D. Effect of an antirotation resistance form on screw loosening for single implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Apr;83(4):450-5.
13. Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA. Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent.
1994;71(6):592-9.
14. Haack JE, Sakaguchi RL, Sun T, Coffey JP. Elongation and preload stress in dental implant abutment screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
1995;10(5):529-36.
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
Cilt: 19, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2009, Sayfa: 131-137
EKREN, KURTOĞLU
15. Khraisat A, Hashimoto A, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an eksternal heksagon implant system. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(4):326-34.
16. Khraisat A, Abu-Hammad O, Dar-Odeh N, Al-Kayed AM. Abutment screw loosening and bending resistance of external hexagon implant system after lateral cyclic loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(3):157-64.
17.
Aca
r A, İnan Ö. İmplant destekli protezlerde okluzyon Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2001;cilt 4, Sayı 1.
18. Lawrence AW, Kruger B. A comparison of implant / prosthesis loading with four clinical variables. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:421-33.
19. Byrne D, Jacobs S, O'Connell B, Houston F, Claffey N. Preloads generated with repeated tightening in three types of screws used in dental implant assemblies. J Prosthodont
2006;15(3):164-71.
20. Boggan RS, Strong JT, Misch CE, Bidez MW. Influence of hex geometry and prosthetic table width on static and fatigue strength of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(4):436-40.
21. Perriard J, Wiskott WA, Mellal A, Scherrer SS, Botsis J, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance of ITI implant-abutment connectors. A comparison of the standard cone with a novel internally keyed design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(5):542-9.
22. Merz BR, Hunenbart S, Belser UC. Mechanics of the implant-abutment connection: an 8-degree taper compared to a butt joint connection. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2000;15: 519-26.
23. Norton MR. An in vitro evaluation of the strength of an internal conical interface compared to a butt joint design. Clinical Oral Implants Research
1997;8: 290-298.
24. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA. Comparison of strength and failure mode of seven implant system:an in vitro test. J Prosthet Dent
1997;78:582-91.
25. Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(1)156-
8.
26. Basten CH, Nicholls JI, Daly CH, Taggart R. Load fatigue performance of two implant-abutment combinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(4):522-8.
27. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Saunders SL. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: preliminary results at 6 or more months of loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(2):237-42.
28. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(4):516-20.
29. Coelho AL, Suzuki M, Dibart S, DA Silva N, Coelho PG. Cross-sectional analysis of the implant-abutment interface. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34(7):508-16.
30. Binon PP. Implants and components:entering the new millenium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Imo
2000;15:76-4.
31. Khraisat A, Stegaroiu, R, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Fatigue resistance of two implant- abutment joint designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:604-10.
32. Akca K, Iplikcioglu H, Cehreli MC. Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant-supported crowns. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial implants (2002);17;536-
542
33. Hansson S. Implant-abutment interface: biomechanical study of flat top versus conical Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2(1):33-41
34. Hansson S. A conical implant-abutment interface at the level of the marginal bone improves the distribution of stresses in the supporting bone. An axisymmetric finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14(3):286-93.
35. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7(3):212-9.
136
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
Cilt: 19, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2009, Sayfa: 131-137
EKREN, KURTOĞLU
36. Snauwaert K, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D,
Quiryne
n M, Naert I. Time dependent failure rate and marginal bone loss of implant supported prostheses: a 15-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Investig 2000;4(1):13-20.
37. Moberg LE, Köndell PA, Sagulin GB, Bolin A, Heimdahl A, Gynther GW. Brânemark System and ITI Dental Implant System for treatment of mandibular edentulism. A comparative randomized study: 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12(5):450-61.
38. Cehreli M, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer. A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(2):249-57.
39. 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(3):326-34

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com