Clinical oral implants research · 2014
Bone resorption in different parts of the mandible in patients restored with an implant overdenture. A retrospective radiographic analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kremer Urs, Schindler Sven, Enkling Norbert, Worni Andreas, Katsoulis Joannis, Mericske-Stern Regina
Аннотация
AIM: This study investigated the pattern of resorption of the mandibular ridge under implant-supported overdentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Files of 60 patients were available for analysis (45 women and 15 men, mean age at the time of the follow-up 76.5 ± 8.5 years, 54 patients restored with bars, 6 with ball anchors). A baseline was defined by different stable landmarks and quartered. Linear measurements from this baseline at different clinical relevant sites approximately at: (i) the area close to the mental foramen/close to the implant, (ii) the chewing center, and (iii) the distal edge of the denture flange were carried out on rotational tomograms (OPTs). The OPTs were taken after prosthetic restoration and at an individual follow-up time (mean 11 ± 4.75 years). The known implant length served to scale each measurement to avoid any distortion errors.
RESULTS: The resorption rate showed a high individual variation, but among the three sites, the difference was highly significant. Median values of site (i) left = -0.07 mm/right = +0.05 mm, site (ii) left = -0.60 mm/right = -0.55 mm, and site (iii) left = -1.58 mm/right = -2.01 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The load of the distal flange of a mandibular implant overdenture increases bone resorption as a local factor, whereas implants may help to prevent resorption in the neighboring bone. An individual-adapted follow-up protocol should be established for each patient restored with an implant overdenture.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Files of 60 patients were available for analysis (45 women and 15 men, mean age at the time of the follow-up 76.5 ± 8.5 years, 54 patients restored with bars, 6 with ball anchors). A baseline was defined by different stable landmarks and quartered. Linear measurements from this baseline at different clinical relevant sites approximately at: (i) the area close to the mental foramen/close to the implant, (ii) the chewing center, and (iii) the distal edge of the denture flange were carried out on rotational tomograms (OPTs). The OPTs were taken after prosthetic restoration and at an individual follow-up time (mean 11 ± 4.75 years). The known implant length served to scale each measurement to avoid any distortion errors.
RESULTS: The resorption rate showed a high individual variation, but among the three sites, the difference was highly significant. Median values of site (i) left = -0.07 mm/right = +0.05 mm, site (ii) left = -0.60 mm/right = -0.55 mm, and site (iii) left = -1.58 mm/right = -2.01 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The load of the distal flange of a mandibular implant overdenture increases bone resorption as a local factor, whereas implants may help to prevent resorption in the neighboring bone. An individual-adapted follow-up protocol should be established for each patient restored with an implant overdenture.