ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
  • 27 of 45
Up
УЖМБС 2023, 8(1): 195–201
https://doi.org/10.26693/jmbs08.01.195
Dentistry

Retrospective Assessment of Available Bone Deficiency among Ukrainian Patients according to the Usage of Dental Implants of Different Sizes

Tsuperyak S. S., Mochalov Yu. O.
Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine a number of clinical cases of dental implantation with insuficient height of the alveolar ridge based on data of consumption of the dental implants of various designs in dental healthcare institutions during 10 years. Materials and methods. The research was performed on the provided information on the sales of dental implants produced by the DENTIUM corporation, “SuperLine” and “SuperLine NEW” (Korea) from the official supplier in Ukraine (“Stamil” group of companies) for the period 2013–2022. Results and discussion. Quality and sufficient volume of bone tissue around the dental implant is an important condition to achieve an optimal level of osseointegration. In cases of a shortage of available bone an additional option in the choice of treatment tactics is the installation of short dental implants. Compared with dental implants of standard and extended length the short implants showed a higher frequency of rejection and early disintegration. The length of the dental implant body is a critical factor in the long-term successful functioning of implants which is ambiguously evaluated and described in the professional literature. The analysis in the subgroups of the use of short implants showed that in the vast majority of cases, dental implants with a length of 8.00 mm were used – in the volume of ten-year implementation, their specific weight was 24.92%. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the volume of application of such structures is identical to the specific gravity of cases of minimal deficit in the height of the bone tissue of the alveolar crest of the jaws – 2.00 mm. The use of descriptive statistics methods made it possible to calculate the average percentage of such clinical cases – 23.92 ± 5.71 mm (M=25.37 mm). In calculations per decade the specific weight of cases of the alveolar ridge height deficiency of the jaws (lack of available bone tissue) was 30.03%. The average value was 28.80 ± 6.74% (M=30.95%), the minimum – 19.11% and the maximum – 38.08%. There were only 1.42% cases of “compensation” of the short implant length by increasing its diameter (upto 6.00 and 7.00 mm) in the overall structure of the performed operations. The usage of average annual number of short dental implants of increased diameter (from 6.00 mm) was 0.67 ± 0.28% (M=0.56%). The analysis of dynamics of the usage of short dental implants (7.00 mm and 8.00 mm) over ten years period revealed unevenness. For implants with a length of 8.00 mm frequency varied between 15.00–30.00%. The usage of shorter structures (length 7.00 mm) did not have such critical changes – minor deviations near 5.00%. Conclusion. The obtained results allowed to determine indirectly the prevalence of the alveolar ridge height deficiency in patients of “implantation cohort” in Ukraine during the last 10 years

Keywords: dentistry, implantation, alveolar ridge, bone, deficiency

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 269K

References
  1. Sumra N, Desai S, Kulshrestha R, Mishra K, Singh RV, Gaonkar P. Analysis of micromovements and peri-implant stresses and strains around ultra-short implants - A three-dimensional finite-element method study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2021 Jul-Aug;25(4):288-94. PMID: 34393398. PMCID: PMC8336772. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_350_20
  2. Karcı BL, Oncu E. Comparison of Osteoimmunological and Microbiological Parameters of Extra Short and Longer Implants Loaded in the Posterior Mandible: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Study. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2021 Sep;55(3):238-47. PMID: 34658370. PMCID: PMC8514233. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc55/3/1
  3. Borie E, Orsi IA, de Araujo CP. The influence of the connection, length and diameter of an implant on bone biomechanics. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015 Jul;73(5):321-9. PMID: 25598357. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2014.961957
  4. Guida L, Bressan E, Cecoro G, Volpe AD, Del Fabbro M, Annunziata M. Short versus Longer Implants in Sites without the Need for Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Materials (Basel). 2022 Apr 26;15(9):3138. PMID: 35591482. PMCID: PMC9099984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093138
  5. Rubo JH, Capello Souza EA. Finite-element analysis of stress on dental implant prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12:105-13. PMID: 19220846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00142.x
  6. Ortega-Oller I, Suárez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Torrecillas-Martínez L, Monje A, Catena A, et al. The influence of implant diameter on its survival: a meta-analysis based on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2014 Apr;85(4):569-80. PMID: 23905841. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2013.130043
  7. Deryabin G, Grybauskas S. Dental implant placement with inferior alveolar nerve repositioning in severely resorbed mandibles: a retrospective multicenter study of implant success and survival rates, and lower lip sensory disturbances. Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Jun 9;7(1):44. PMID: 34105021. PMCID: PMC8187674. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00334-x
  8. Kablan F, Oren D, Zigron A, Redenski I, Srouji S. Expanding The Surgeon's Armamentarium - Use of the Tubing Technique to Preserve the Inferior Alveolar Nerve During Transposition Procedure. J Oral Implantol. 2022 Jul 26. PMID: 35881818. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00382
  9. Monje A, Fu JH, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Catena A, et al. Do implant length and width matter for short dental implants (<10 mm)? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Periodontol. 2013 Dec;84(12):1783-91. PMID: 23451988. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2013.120745
  10. Kostenko Y, Mochalov I, Kaminsky R, Nakashidze G, Bun Y, Goncharuk-Khomyn M. Application of synthetic osteoplastic material EasyGraft® in maxilla subantral augmentation (sinus-lift). Georgian Med News. 2018 Dec;(285):32-6. PMID: 30702066.
  11. Pommer B, Frantal S, Willer J, Posch M, Watzek G, Tepper G. Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Sep;38(9):856-63. PMID: 21722154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01750.x
  12. Misch CE, Steignga J, Barboza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short dental implants in posterior partial edentulism: a multicenter retrospective 6-year case series study. J Periodontol. 2006 Aug;77(8):1340-7. PMID: 16937587. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050402
  13. Al-Johany SS, Al-Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental Implant Length and Diameter: A Proposed Classification Scheme. J Prosthodont. 2017 Apr;26(3):252-60. PMID: 27379723. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12517
  14. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. Mosby Elsevier; 2008. 1102 p.
  15. Resnik R. Misch's Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 4th ed. Mosby Elsevier; 2020. 1264 p.
  16. Pauletto P, Ruales-Carrera E, Mezzomo LA, Stefani CM, Taba M Jr, Gonçalves RB, et al. Clinical performance of short versus standard dental implants in vertically augmented bone: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Nov;25(11):6045-68. PMID: 34398327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04095-0
  17. Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:35-51. PMID: 16968380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01349.x
  18. Lombardo G, Signoriello A, Marincola M, Liboni P, Bonfante EA, Nocini PF. Survival rates of ultra-short (<6 mm) compared with short locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas: A 5-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021 Dec;23(6):904-19. PMID: 34796619. PMCID: PMC9299664. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13054