Amaç: Dental implantlar, dişsiz alanların estetik ve fonksiyonunun sağlanması amacıyla dişleri taklit eden biyouyumlu materyallerdir. Günümüzde çeşitli implantlar, oral ve maksillofasiyal cerrahi pratiğinde kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı dental implantların başarısını cinsiyet, implant uygulanan bölge, implant çap, uzunluğu ve implant markası açısından retrospektif olarak değerlendirmek ve sağkalım oranlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2010-2017 yılları arasında İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi ABD'de aynı cerrahi ekip tarafından uygulanan kemik içi implantların başarı ve sağkalımı retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Klinik ve radyolojik kontrollerin uygulandığı hastalar çalışmaya alınmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışma kriterlerine uyan 77 kadın ve 17 erkekten oluşan 94 hastaya 349 adet dental implant uygulanmıştır. Doksan dört (%26,93) adet Camlog®, 73 (%20,91) adet Straumann® ve 182 (%52,14) adet Ziacom® implant uygulanmıştır. Değerlendirilen 349 implantın 9'u (%2,57) kaybedilmiştir. Genel implant başarı oranı %97,42 olarak bulunmuştur. Camlog®, Straumann® ve Ziacom® gruplarının kayıp varlığı dağılımları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık gözlenmemiştir (p=0,205). Camlog® grubunun 1 yıllık sağkalım oranı %97,9; Ziacom® grubunun 1 yıllık sağkalımı %96,2; Straumann® grubunun sağkalım oranı %100 olarak bulunmuş; grupların sağkalım süreleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık gözlenmemiştir (Logrank: 0,52 p=0,470). Sonuç: Çalışmada uygulanan 3 farklı implantın başarı ve sağkalım oranı yüksek bulunmuştur. Doğru cerrahi teknik ve tedavi prosedürü uygulandığında, dental implantların başarısı ve hayatta kalma oranı yüksektir. Sonuçlar, literatürle uyumludur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Diş implantları; oral cerrahi; sağkalım analizi
Objective: Dental implants are biocompatible materials that imitate teeth in order to provide the aesthetics and function of toothless areas. Various type of dental implants have been used in oral and maxillofacial surgery practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of different dental implants regarding to to the location of the implants, implant diameter and length and the type of the implants and also to compare the survival rate of these implants. Material and Methods: In the present study; the survival and the success of the dental implants applied by the same surgical team at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul University, from 2010 through 2017, was retrospectively evaluated. The patients who had the clinical and radiological records were included to this study. Results: The clinical success of 349 implants applied to 94 patients (77 female, 17 male) was evaluated. Ninety four (26.93%) Camlog®, 73 (20.91%) Straumann® and 182 (52.14%) Ziacom® implants were placed. Nine (2.57%) implants were lost from 349 implants included in the study. Implant success rate was found as 97.42%. No statistically significant difference was observed between the distribution of failed implant associated with Camlog®, Straumann® and Ziacom® groups (p=0.205). One year survival rate of Camlog®, Ziacom® and Straumann® implants was found as 97.9%, 96.2%; and 100% respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the implant groups regarding the survival rate (Logrank: 0.52 p=0.470). Conclusion: The success and survival rates of 3 different implants used in the study were found to be high. The success and survival rate of the dental implants are high when the correct surgical technique and treatment procedure is applied. The results are compatible with literature.
Keywords: Dental implants; oral surgery; survival analysis
- Cury PR, Sendyk WR, Sallum AW. Factors associated with early and late failure of osseointegrated implant. Braz J Oral Sci. 2003;2(6): 233-8. [Link]
- Olmedo-Gaya MV, Manzano-Moreno FJ, Ca-averal-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(2):150-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Manicone PF, Passarelli PC, Bigagnoli S, Pastorino R, Manni A, Pasquantonio G, et al. Clinical and radiographic assessment of implant- supported rehabilitation of partial and complete edentulism: a 2 to 8 years clinical follow-up. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22(13): 4045-52. [PubMed]
- Do TA, Le HS, Shen YW, Huang HL, Fuh LJ. Risk factors related to late failure of dental implant-a systematic review of recent studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11): 3931. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2014;41(6):443-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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(1):33-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in male versus female patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(9):709-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Negri M, Galli C, Smerieri A, Macaluso GM, Manfredi E, Ghiacci G, et al. The effect of age, gender, and insertion site on marginal bone loss around endosseous implants: results from a 3-year trial with premium implant system. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:369051. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Staedt H, Rossa M, Lehmann KM, Al-Nawas B, Kämmerer PW, Heimes D. Potential risk factors for early and late dental implant failure: a retrospective clinical study on 9080 implants. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):81. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Kashani H, Hilon J, Rasoul MH, Friberg B. Influence of a single preoperative dose of antibiotics on the early implant failure rate. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(2):278-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Adalı E, Yüce MÖ, Günbay T, Çıplak G. Farklı dental implantların başarı oranlarının geriye dönük olarak değerlendirilmesi [Retrospective evaluation of the success rates of different dental implants]. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2018; 28(2):174-81. [Crossref]
- Melo MD, Shafie H, Obeid G. Implant survival rates for oral and maxillofacial surgery residents: a retrospective clinical review with analysis of resident level of training on implant survival. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(8): 1185-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Baqain ZH, Moqbel WY, Sawair FA. Early dental implant failure: risk factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50(3):239-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Olate S, Lyrio MC, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(2):414-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011;3(4):204-15. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43(2):192-203. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zupnik J, Kim SW, Ravens D, Karimbux N, Guze K. Factors associated with dental implant survival: a 4-year retrospective analysis. J Periodontol. 2011;82(10):1390-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- French D, Larjava H, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1: multivariate survival analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(11):1345-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List