Özet

Bu retrospektif pilot çalışmada Ti-base abutmentlar ve simante abutmentların kullanıldığı implant destekli tek kuronların 2 yıllık takip süresinde marjinal kemik kayıplarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada, simante veya Ti-base abutmentlar kullanılarak implant üstü tek kuronlar ile rehabilite edilmiş 18 hastaya uygulanmış 20 implanta ait veriler incelenmiştir. İmplantların yükleme ve 2 yıllık takip röntgenlerdeki marjinal kemik kayıpları bir görüntü işleme programı (Image J, US National Institutes of Health, ABD) kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Marjinal kemik seviyeleri implant boynu ile krestal kemiğin implanta ilk temas ettiği nokta arasındaki mesafeler ölçülerek belirlenmiştir. Gruplar 2 yıllık takip süresi sonrasında marjinal kemik kaybı açısından değerlendirildiğinde; Ti-base grubunda ortalama 0,027 ± 0,145 mm kemik kaybı görülürken, simante grubunda ortalama 0,314 ± 0,421 mm kayıp görülmüştür ancak bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamsız bulunmuştur (p<0,05). Çalışmamızın sınırları dahilinde, Ti-base grubunda simante grubundan daha az marjinal kemik kaybı gözlendiğinden Ti-base abutmentların simante abutmentlara göre daha güvenilir olduğu kanısına varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Marjinal Kemik Kaybı, Ti-base Abutment, İmplant, Tek Kuron

---

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective pilot study was to compare the marginal bone loss of implant-supported single crowns using Ti-base abutments and cemented abutments over a two-year follow-up period. In the study, data of 20 implants applied to 18 patients who were rehabilitated with single crowns on implants using cemented or Ti-base abutments were analyzed. The marginal bone loss of the implants on loading and two-year follow-up X-rays was determined using an image processing program (Image J, US National Institutes of Health, USA). Marginal bone levels were determined by measuring the distances between the implant neck and the point where the crestal bone first contacts the implant. When the groups were evaluated in terms of marginal bone loss after a two-year follow-up period, an average of 0.027 ± 0.145 mm bone loss was observed in the Ti-base group, while an average of 0.314 ± 0.421 mm loss was observed in the cemented group, but this difference was found to be statistically insignificant (p<0.05).  Within the limits of our study; since less marginal bone loss was observed in the Ti-base group than the cemented group, it was concluded that Ti-base abutments are more reliable than cemented abutments.

Keywords

Marginal Bone Loss, Ti-base abutment, Implant, Single Crown

---

Referanslar | References

1. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(5):1102-7.
2. Lekholm U, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Lindén U, Bergström C, et al. Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(5):639-45.
3. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Givani A, Stellini E. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5(4):355-64.
4. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, Engevall S, Engquist B, Eriksson AR, et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol. 1988;59(5):287-96.
5. Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):66-75.
6. Quaranta A, Lim ZW, Tang J, Perrotti V, Leichter J. The Impact of Residual Subgingival Cement on Biological Complications Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent. 2017;26(3):465-74.
7. Wadhwani C, Piñeyro A. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102(1):57-8.
8. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease - a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1278-90.
9. Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Problems with prostheses on implants: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(3):283-8.
10. Resnik R. Misch's contemporary implant dentistry 4ed: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.
11. Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, Sorensen JA. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(2):239-46.
12. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14(1):137-41.
13. Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(2):237-45.
14. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285-91.
15. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):121-32.
16. Abduo J. Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(6):758-66.
17. Zahoui A, Bergamo ET, Marun MM, Silva KP, Coelho PG, Bonfante EA. Cementation Protocol for Bonding Zirconia Crowns to Titanium Base CAD/CAM Abutments. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33(5):527-35.
18. Kurbad A, Kurbad S. CAD/CAM-based implant abutments. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(2):125-41.
19. Pamato S, Honório HM, da Costa JA, Traebert JL, Bonfante EA, Pereira JR. The influence of titanium base abutments on peri-implant soft tissue inflammatory parameters and marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(4):542-8.
20. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(4):375-9.
21. Shi JY, Jie N, Zhuang LF, Zhang XM, Fan LF, Lai HC. Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191717.
22. Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, Monje A, F OV, Catena A. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(4):e28-e34.
23. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1997;68(11):1117-30.
24. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int j oral maxillofac implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.
25. Klein M, Tarnow D, Lehrfield L. Marginal Bone Changes on Ultraclean, Micro-Threaded Platform-Switched Implants Following Restoration: 1- to 4-Year Data. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2020;41(4):e7-e18.
26. Caudry S, Chvartszaid D, Kemp N. A simple cementation method to prevent material extrusion into the periimplant tissues. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102(2):130-1.
27. Blatz MB, Bergler M, Holst S, Block MS. Zirconia abutments for single-tooth implants--rationale and clinical guidelines. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(11 Suppl):74-81.
28. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):71-6.
29. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(1):43-7.
30. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(12):1379-84.
31. Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Maslova N, Linkeviciene L, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T. Clinical Factors Influencing Removal of the Cement Excess in Implant-Supported Restorations. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(4):771-8.
32. Cardoso KB, Bergamo ETP, Cruz VM, Ramalho IS, Lino LFO, Bonfante EA. Three-dimensional misfit between Ti-Base abutments and implants evaluated by replica technique. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28:e20200343.
33. Guncu MB, Aktas G, Guncu GN, Anıl D, Turkyilmaz I, Antonoff LR. Clinical, Technical, and Radiologic Outcomes of 182 Implant-Supported Zirconia Single Crowns Using Titanium-Base Abutments: A Retrospective Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35(4):553–9.