Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

İMPLANT DESTEKLİ SABİT PROTEZLERDE PROTETİK BAŞARISIZLIKLAR: DÖRT YILLIK ÇOK MERKEZLİ RETROSPEKTİF ANALİZ

PROSTHETIC COMPLICATIONS IN IMPLANT SUPPORTED FIXED PROSTHESIS: A FOUR YEAR MULTI-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
There have been many materials and application methods developed in order to overcome the complications related with implant supported restorations. Prosthetic failures still could emerge in spite of all advanced applications. One of the most common reasons of a prosthetic failure was shown to be the excessive occlusal forces. Excessive occlusal forces may cause prosthetic complications or component fractures as well as with progressive crestal bone loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prosthetic complications of the implant supported fixed prosthesis followed up to four years A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate possible associations. Long bridges and single tooth crowns were associated with porcelain fracture (pO.Ol, HR: 4.46) and cement loosening (p<0.05 HR: 3.22) respectively. Care must be given to occlusal alignment of the implant supported crowns/bridges to overcome long-term complications.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
implant destekl i protezlerle ilgili çok sayıda materyal ve uygulama yöntemi geliştirilmiş, klinik kullanıma sunulmuştur. İleri uygulamalara rağmen protetik başarısızlıklar halen ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Protetik başarısızlıkların en önemli nedenlerinden biri aşırı okluzal kuvvetlerdir. Kötü planlanmış bir okluzal kuvvet dağlımı, anormal krestal kemik kaybı ve protetik komplikasyonlara neden olabilir. Bu retrospektif çalışmanın amacı üç farklı merkezde yapılan ve 4 yıl takibi yapılan implant destekli sabit protezlerde ortaya çıkan protetik komplikasyonların değerlendirilmesidir Farklı klinüderde uygulanan 204 adet implant Standard bir protokolle takip edilmiştir Risk faktörlerinin değerlendirilmesinde Cox oransal Hazard regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır Uzun köprüler ve tek üye kuronlar sırasıyla porselen kırığı (p<0 01 HR- 4 46) ve de-simantasyon (p<0 05 HR-3 22) riski göstermektedir Uzun dönem komplikasyoXrm azaltılması için oklüzal tema lar dikkatle düzenlenmelidir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-implant-destekli-sabit-protezlerde-protetik-basarisizliklar-dort-yillik-cok-merkezli-retrospektif-analiz.pdf
  • 2
75
80
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointagrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl, 1977; 16: 1-32.
2. Mijiritsky E, Karas S. Removable partial denture design involving teeth and implants as an alternative to unsuccessful fixed implant therapy: A case report. Implant Dent, 2004; 13: 218-22.
3. Fischer K, Stenberg T, Hedin M, Sennerby L. Five-year results from a randomized, controlled trial on early and delayed loading of implants supporting full-arch prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla. Clin. Oral Implants Res, 2008; 19: 433-41.
4. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1986; 1: 1-25.
5. Carl E. Misch, Morton L. Perel, Horn-Lay Wang, Gilberto Sammartino, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Paolo Trisi, Marius Steigmann, Alberto Rebaudi Ady Palti Michael A Pikos D Schwartz-Arad Joseph Choukroun, Jose-Luis Gutierrez-Perez Gaetano Marenzi Dimosthenis K Valavanis Implant success' survival and' failure- The International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa
80
Pişkin B., Gökçe HS., Av sever H^, Ansan V., Ataç MS., Gündüz K.
Consensus Conference. Implant Dent, 2008; 17: 5-15.
6. Van Steenberghe D, Lekholm U, Bolender C, et al. Applicability of osseointegrated oral implants in the rehabilitation of partial edentulism: A prospective multicenter study on 558 fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1990; 5: 272-81.
7. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, et al. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: Literature support. Implant Dent, 2005; 14: 108-16.
8. Santos MDB, Pfeifer AB, Silva MRP, Sendyk CL, Sendyk WR. Fracture of abutment screw supporting a cemented implan-retained prosthesis with external hexagon connection: a case report with SEM evaluation. J Appl OralSci, 2007; 15 (2): 148-51.
9. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1992; 3: 104-11.
10. Vidyasagar L, Apse P. Restorative factors that affect the biomechanics of the dental implant. Stomatologija: Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal, 2003; 5 (4): 123-28.
11. Al Jabbari YS, Fournelle R, Ziebert G, Toth J, Lacopino 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 (3): 201-10.
12. Stanford CM. Application of oral implants to the general dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc, 2005; 136: 1092-1100.
13. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent, 1999; 81 (5): 537¬52.
14. Tsumita M, Kokubo Y, Steyern PV, Fukushima S. Effect of framework shape on the fracture strength of implant-supported all-
ceramic fixed partial denturesin the molar region. J Prosthodont, 2008; 17 (4): 274-85.
15. Naert I, Quirynen M, Darius P. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspect. J Prosthet Dent, 1992; 68 (6): 949-56.
16. Jemt T, Book K, Linden G. Failures and complications in 92 consecutively inserted overdentures supported be Branemark implants in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae: A study from prosthetic treatment to fisrt annual check-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1992; 7 (2): 162-67.
17. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. St. Louis: Mosby, 2005, p. 91-98.
18. Zarb GA, Schimitt A. The edentulous predicement I: A prospective study of the effectiveness of implant supported fixed prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc, 1996; 127: 59¬65.
19. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockier B, Branemark PI. A 15-years study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg, 1981; 10: 387-417.
20. Hemmings KW, Schmitt A, Zarb GA. Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report. Int Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1994; 9: 191-96.
21. Takahashi T, Gunne J. Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication technique. J Prosthet Dent, 2003; 89: 256-60.
22. Taylor D. Prosthodontic problem and limitations associated with osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent, 1998; 79: 74-78.
23. Mericske-Stern R, Griitter L, Rösch R, Mericske E. Clinical evaluation and prosthetic complications of single tooth replacement by non-submerged implants. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2001; 12: 309-18.

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