Czynniki wpływające na wybór sposobu odbudowy koron zębów

Dostęp do tego artykułu jest płatny.
Zapraszamy do zakupu!

Cena: 24.00 PLN (z VAT)

Po dokonaniu zakupu artykuł w postaci pliku PDF prześlemy bezpośrednio pod twój adres e-mail.

MS 2024; 6: 8-19.

REPORTAŻ KLINICZNY

Czynniki wpływające na wybór sposobu odbudowy koron zębów na sąsiadujących ze sobą implantach dentystycznych – racjonalne uzasadnienie blokowania lub nieblokowania koron protetycznych

Factors infl uencing the choice of the method of rebuilding tooth crowns on adjacent dental implants – rational justifi cation for blocking or not blocking prosthetic crowns

Michał Wójtowicz, Krzysztof Gronkiewicz, Agata Wójtowicz

Streszczenie

Wszczepy śródkostne są skutecznym sposobem rehabilitacji pacjentów zczęściowymi brakami zę bowymi. Do lekarza planującego rekonstrukcję na sąsiadujących zesobą implantach należy decyzja, czy korony będą połączone zesobą, czy pozosta ną niezblokowane. Należy przeprowadzić dokładny wywiad z pacjentem oraz dokładne badanie kliniczne w celu oceny higieny, sprawności manualnej pacjenta, okluzji oraz występowania ewentualnych parafunkcji. W przypadku pacjentów o niskich zdolnościach manualnych oraz niewystarczającej higienie jamy ustnej klinicyści skłaniają się w stronę koron pojedynczych, natomiast u pacjentów z parafunkcjami lub zaburzoną okluzją częściej wybierają korony zblokowane. Decyzja ta powinna opierać się również na parametrach wszczepionego implantu. W przypadku implantów krótkich, o wąskiej średnicy zalecane jest blokowanie koron. Między implantami z odbudową pojedynczą a zblokowaną nie stwierdza się statystycznie istotnych różnic w utracie kości brzeżnej oraz częstości występowania powikłań z uszkodzeniem suprastruktury. Zastosowanie odbudowy zblokowanej zwiększa jednak przeżywalność implantu.

Abstract

During the planning of the rehabilitation of adja cent implants, in order to assess the hygiene, manual dexterity and possible parafunctions, athor ough clinical examination and interview with the patient has to be done. If a patient has a low level of manual dexterity, and insufficient oral hygiene, dentists will more often choose nonsplinted restorations. However, in the case of parafunctions and disturbed occlusion, more often splinted restorations are chosen. The decision about which restoration will be used is also based on the parameters of the implant. If ashort, narrow diameter implant is used, splinted restorations are recommended. Therere is no statistical significance difference between splinted and nonsplited restorations for marginal bone loss. Also, there is no statistical significance for the frequency of prosthetic com plications between splinted and nonsplited restorations. The use of splinted restorations is linked with higher survival rates.

Hasła indeksowe: wszczepy śródkostne, blokowanie implantów, korony pojedyncze na implantach, utrata kości brzeżnej, wskaźnik przeżywalności, krótkie implanty

Key words: dental implants, splinted / nonsplin ted implants, marginal bone loss, survival rate, short implants

Piśmiennictwo

Lemos CAA, de Souza Batista VE, de Faria Almeida DA i wsp. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(4): 419-427.
Sivolella S, Stellini E, Testori T i wsp. Splinted and unsplinted short implants in mandibles: a retrospective evaluation with 5 to 16 years of follow-up. J Periodontol. 2013; 84(4): 502-512.
Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP i wsp. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(Suppl 3): 97-113.
Manzano G, Montero J, Martín-Vallejo J i wsp. Risk factors in early implant failure: a meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2016; 25(2): 272-280.
Isidor F. Influence of forces on peri-implant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(Suppl 2): 8-18.
Duyck J, Vandamme K. The effect of loading on peri-implant bone: A critical review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41(10): 783-794.
Oliva J, Oliva X, Oliva JD. One-year follow-up of first consecutive 100 zirconia dental implants in humans: a comparison of 2 different rough surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22(3): 430-435.
Scheller H, Urgell JP, Kultje C i wsp. A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13(2): 212-218.
Wang TM, Leu LJ, Wang J i wsp. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: A numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17(2): 231-237.
Fan T, Li Y, Deng WW i wsp. Short implants (5 to 8 mm) versus longer implants (>8 mm) with sinus lifting in atrophic posterior maxilla: a meta-analysis of RCTs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19(1): 207-215.
Abduljabbar T, Al-Hamoudi N, Al-Sowygh ZH i wsp. Comparison of peri-implant clinical and radiographic status around short (6 mm in length) dental implants placed in cigarette-smokers and never-smokers: six-year follow-up results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20(1): 21-25.
Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13(2): 204-211.
Artzi Z, Carmeli G, Kozlovsky A. A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated implants in 5-10 years in function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17(1): 85-93.
Amine M, Guelzim Y, Benfaida S i wsp. Short implants (5-8 mm) vs. long implants in augmented bone and their impact on peri-implant bone in maxilla and/or mandible: Systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 120(2): 133-142.
Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U. Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: A study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6(2): 142-146.
Piza Pellizzer E, Cantieri de Mello C, Ferreira Santiago Jr J i wsp. Analysis of the biomechanical behavior of short implants: the photo-elasticity method. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2015; 55: 187-192.
Mendonça JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM i wsp. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol. 2014; 85(6): 787-794.
Pieri F, Aldini NN, Fini M i wsp. Preliminary 2-year report on treatment outcomes for 6-mm-long implants in posterior atrophic mandibles. Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25(3): 279-289.
Qiu-Lan Li, Mian-Feng Yao, Ruo-Yan Cao i wsp. Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2021; 31(1): 9-21.
Sun HL, Huang C, Wu YR i wsp. Failure rates of short (≤ 10 mm) dental implants and factors influencing their failure: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(4): 816-825.
Worthington H, Clarkson J, Weldon J. Priority oral health research identification for clinical decision-making. Evid Based Dent. 2015; 16(3): 69-71.
Ravidà A, Saleh MHA, Carreño Muriel M i wsp. Biological and Technical Complications of Splinted or Nonsplinted Dental Implants: A Decision Tree for Selection. Implant Dent. 2018; 27(1): 89-94.
Hauchard E, Fournier BP, Jacq R i wsp. Splinting effect on posterior implants under various loading modes: a 3D finite element analysis. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2011; 19(3): 117-122.
Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA i wsp. Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted screw-retained prostheses on short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(6): 1176-1182.
De Souza Batista VE, Verri FR, Lemos CAA i wsp. Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121(1): 41-51.
Clelland N, Chaudhry J, Rashid RG i wsp. Split-Mouth Comparison of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses on Short Implants: 3-Year Results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31(5): 1135-1141.
Al Amri MD, Kellesarian SV. Crestal bone loss around adjacent dental implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted fixed restorations: a systematic literature review. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26(6): 495-501.
Prete BRJ, Silva MAJ, Wong BC i wsp. A pattern of peri-implantitis affecting middle implants in 3-implant splinted prostheses. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2023.
Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, Freitas da Silva EV i wsp. Is the internal connection more efficient than external connection in mechanical, biological, and esthetical point of views? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 19(3): 229-242.
Vanlıoğlu B, Özkan Y, Kulak-Özkan Y. Retrospective analysis of prosthetic complications of implant-supported fixed partial dentures after an observation period of 5 to 10 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28(5): 1300-1304.
Behr M, Winklhofer C, Schreier M i wsp. Risk of chipping or facings failure of metal ceramic fixed partial prostheses – a retrospective data record analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16(2): 401-405.
Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N i wsp. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: A critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25(3): 506-515.
Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF i wsp. Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: a retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(1): 76-81.
Pieri F, Aldini NN, Fini M i wsp. Immediate functional loading of dental implants supporting a bar-retained maxillary overdenture: Preliminary 12-month results. J Periodontol. 2009; 80(11): 1883-1893.
Van Velzen FJJ, Lang NP, Schulten EAJM i wsp. Dental floss as a possible risk for the development of peri-implant disease: An observational study of 10 cases. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(5): 618-621.
Serino G, Ström C. Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: Association with inadequate plaque control. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20(2): 169-174.
Pieri F, Forlivesi C, Caselli E i wsp. Narrow-diameter (3.0 mm) versus standard-diameter (4.0 and 4.5 mm) implants for the splinted partial fixed restoration of posterior jaws: A 5-year retrospective cohort study. J Periodontol. 2016; 88(4): 1-14.
Norton MR. Multiple single-tooth implant restorations in the posterior jaws: maintenance of marginal bone levels with reference to the implant-abutment microgap. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(5): 777-784.