BONE TISSUE RESORPTION AROUND INTRAOSSEOUS DENTAL IMPLANTS IN PATIENTS WITH MANDIBLE EDENTULOUSNESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35220/2078-8916-2022-46-4.10Keywords:
cone-beam computed tomography; edentulousness; implantsAbstract
The objective of the research was to determine the indicators of bone tissue resorption around the intraosseous supports of prosthodontic structures manufactured to treat mandible edentulousness on the basis of radiological and statistical methods of the research. Materials and methods: 75 patients who had undergone primary (n=41 (54.7%)) and repeated (n=34 (45.3%)) prosthodontic treatment of mandible edentulousness by manufacturing four implant-supported dental prostheses were under our follow-up. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the type of the fixed implant-supported dental prosthesis. Each group consisted of 2 subgroups (subgroup A included primary treated patients; subgroup B consisted of the patients who underwent repeated prosthodontic treatment of mandible edentulousness). We performed cone-beam computed tomography in order to achieve the objective of the research. The results of an X-ray examination were analyzed using the 3D VolumeViewer program by measuring the levels of bone tissue resorption around intraosseous dental implants. Measurements were conducted around 300 implants in total. Each placed intraosseous dental implant was marked for the comparison of the results. Indicators of bone tissue resorption levels stated for a certain implant according to location were determined. X-ray examination was conducted in 12 months after the fixation of dental prostheses. Results of the research. Median indicators of bone tissue resorption levels differed in observation groups. In particular, the highest level was recorded around “Implant 1” in group IIA which was reliably (рІ-ІІІ<0.01) 3 times higher than around the implant of similar location in group IIIA. The lowest median levels of resorption were recorded in group IIIB ((рІ-ІІІ<0.01-0.05). The statistical reliability of differences between the indicators of resorption around the implants within one group (рI>0.05) and comparing around the implants within subgroups of the same group (рA-B>0.05) was not determined. Conclusions 1. The type of fixed dental prothesis directly affected the degree of development of bone tissue resorption around intraosseous supports. 2. The lowest resorption level was recorded around each of the implants in group IIIA and IIIB which was reliably (рA-B <0.01-0.05) 2-3 times lower than around implants with similar location in the cellular part of groups I and II. 3. No significant changes in indicators were found when comparing primary-treated and repeatedly treated patients by manufacturing one type of four implant-supported dental prostheses.
References
Li Y., Ling J., Jiang Q. Inflammasomes in Alveolar Bone Loss. Front Immunol. 2021; № 12. Р. 691013. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.691013.
Insua A., Monje A., Wang H.L., Miron R.J. Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss. J Biomed Mater Res. 2017; № 7(105). Р.2075-2089. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36060.
Bertolini M.M., Del Bel Cury A.A., Pizzoloto L., Acapa I.R.H., Shibli J.A., Bordin D. Does traumatic occlusal forces lead to peri-implant bone loss? A systematic review. Braz Oral Res. 2019. № 33(suppl 1). Р. е069. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0069.
Jepsen S., Caton J.G., Albandar J.M., Bissada N.F., Bouchard P., Cortellini P., et al. Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018. № 89 (Suppl 1). Р.237-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.17-0733
Guo Y., Kono K., Suzuki Y., Ohkubo C., Zeng J.Y., Zhang J. Influence of marginal bone resorption on two mini implant-retained mandibular overdenture: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021. № 13(1). Р.55-64. doi: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.1.55.
Maló P., Rangert B., Nobre M. "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003. № 5 (Suppl 1). Р.2-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003. tb00010.x.
Pelekhan B., Rozhko M., Pelekhan L. THE PROSTHODONTIC TREATMENT OF THE MANDIBLE EDENTULOUSNESS. CLINICAL CASE. Art of medicine. 2021. № 4 (20). Р.140-146. Available from: https://art-of medicine.ifnmu.edu.ua/index.php/aom/article/view/710
Pelekhan B., Dutkiewicz M., Shatskyi I., Velychkovych A., Rozhko M., Pelekhan L. Analytical Modeling of the Interaction of a Four Implant-Supported Overdenture with Bone Tissue. Materials (Basel). 2022. № 15(7). Р.2398. doi: 10.3390/ma15072398.
Децик О.З. Методичні підходи до узагальнення результатів наукових досліджень. Галицький лікарський вісник. 2011. т.18(2). С. 5-8.
Linkevicius T., Apse P., Grybauskas S., Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009. № 24(4). Р.712-719. PMID: 19885413.
Linkevicius T., Puisys A., Linkeviciene L., Peciuliene V., Schlee M. Crestal Bone Stability around Implants with Horizontally Matching Connection after Soft Tissue Thickening: A Prospective Clinical Trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015. № 17(3). Р.497-508. doi: 10.1111/cid.12155.
Sarmiento H.L., Norton M.R., Fiorellini J.P. A Classification System for Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016. № 36(5). Р.699-705. doi: 10.11607/prd.2918.
Chuzhak A., Sulyma V., Ropyak L., Velychkovych A., Vytvytskyi V. Mathematical Modelling of Destabilization Stress Factors of Stable-Elastic Fixation of Distal Transand Suprasyndesmotic Fibular Fractures. J Healthc Eng. 2021. № 2021. Р.6607364. doi: 10.1155/2021/6607364.
