Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Dr sowmya sdm2003
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Dr sowmya sdm2003

400

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
400
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Dr Sowmya Salian post Graduate Student Department of Periodontics & Oral Implantology S.D.M Dental College Dharwad Dr Srinath Thakur Principal & Head of Department Dr Sudhindra.S.Kulkarni Professor
  • 2.  
  • 3.
    • The use of dental implants for dental restorations has
    • revolutionized patient care and is increasing by the
    • day.
    • The concept of osseointegration has changed the very way in which we replace missing teeth…
    • Its been proven beyond doubt that dental implant
    • retained restorations enhance masticatory efficacy,
    • quality of speech,stability of the existing prosthesis,
    • provide outstanding esthetics along with reduced
    • resorption of the alveolar ridge.
  • 4.
    • As on date dental implants are possibly the best
    • possible mode to replace missing teeth.
    • The success of dental implants and its longevity is
    • influenced by various factors..
    • The dental implant success criteria have been
    • proposed and revised over a period of time..
    • Schnitman 1979, Cranin 1982, McKinney RV 1984,
    • Albrektsson 1986,1998, Smith & Zarb 1989
  • 5.
    • “ Implant success criteria” – by Albreksson et al. . has been the “ Gold Standard ” while measuring the implant success ..given way back in 1986.
    • However with the change in implant design, surface
    • characteristics and technique of placement of dental
    • implants.. has necessitated newer definition for implant success..
  • 6.
    • 1993 .. James established.. Implant quality of health
    • scale.. Further .. Misch in 1993,1998.
    • The International Congress Of Oral Implantologist
    • [ICOI] consensus conference on implant success
    • criteria contains a list of parameters to be checked
    • to call the implant as a success or a failure..
    • Misch et al 2008
  • 7.  
  • 8.
    • Patients visiting Department of Oral Implantology and
    • Periodontics, S.D.M. College of Dental Sciences and
    • Hospital, Dharwad.
    SOURCE OF DATA
  • 9.
    • This prospective, longitudinal Cohort study involved a
    • total of 30 sites in 20 subjects[11 male, 8 females] who
    • received implants from 1 st January 2008 to 30 th June 2009 …were evaluated.
    • Informed written consent obtained …
    PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA:
  • 10.
    • Patients undergoing implant therapy to replace
    • either single or multiple unit bridge and full mouth
    • restorations.
    • All patients should have received and had
    • restored the implants with a minimum of 6 months
    • period.
  • 11.
    • 1] Patients with any systemic conditions that may
    • influence the survival and success rates of the
    • dental implants.
    • 2] Patients not agreeable to the terms of the study.
    • 3] Patients with implants without restorations
  • 12.  
  • 13.
    • All the implant sites were clinically evaluated :
    • At the time of implant placement
    • At the time of cementation
    • At 6 months post cementation..
    Implant characteristics Diameter Length Bone quality around implant Torque at implant placement Grafting procedures Clinical evaluation
  • 14.
    • 1] Modified Plaque Index ; Mombelli et al 1987.
    • 2] The distance between the implant shoulder and the
    • mucosal margin [DIM] in mm
    • 3] Pocket Probing Depth [PPD] in mm
    • 4] Probing attachment level [PAL] in mm which was
    • calculated by subtracting PPD from DIM.
    • 5] Bleeding on probing [BOP].
    • 6] Exudation
    • 7] Pain
    • 8] Mobility
  • 15.
    • Radiographs were obtained using a long cone
    • Technique and taken
    • At the time of implant placement.
    • At time of cementation
    • At 6 months post cementation
    • To visualize the distance between the implant
    • shoulder and the crest of the alveolar bone.
  • 16. IMPLANT SHOULDER THREAD PITCH Misch et al 2008
  • 17.
    • The statistical analysis was done using
    • Student’s paired t-test.
    • Wilcoxon matched pairs test.
    • Karl Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
  • 18.
    • In the present study we found that :
    • Around 35% of the implants sites had bleeding on
    • probing at the end of 6 months post cementation
    • 78% of the sites had D2 bone quality and
    • 20% of the implants had D3 bone quality at the
    • time of implant placement.
  • 19.
    • 70% of implants .. mean diameter of 3.5 -4.3mm
    • mean length of about 10 -14mm.
    • The implants had 35-40 Ncm 2 of torque at the
    • time of placement.
    • The mean probing depth was about 1-1.5mm
    • however it was around 2.5 mm at the end of
    • 6 month post cementation.
  • 20. NS= Non -Significant (p > 0.05), S= Significant (p < 0.05) Table 1: Comparison of vertical bone levels (MESIAL) at the implant site at different time intervals Interval Mean p-value S At implant placement 0.40 ± 0.89 0.00 S At cementation 1.63 ± 0.42 At implant placement 0.40 ± 0.89 0.00 S 6 months post cementation 1.58 ± 0.44 At cementation 1.63 ± 0.42 0.73 NS 6 months post cementation 1.58 ± 0.44
  • 21. NS= Non -Significant (p > 0.05), S= Significant (p < 0.05) Table 2: Comparison of vertical bone levels (DISTAL) at the implant site at different time intervals Interval Mean p-value S At implant placement 0.40 ± 0.89 0.00 S At cementation 1.73 ± 0.47 At implant placement 0.40 ± 0.89 0.00 S 6 months post cementation 1.56 ± 0.34 At cementation 1.72 ± 0.47 0.13 NS 6 months post cementation 1.56 ± 0.34
  • 22. Table 3: Comparison of mPI and GI at cementation and 6 months by wilcoxon matched pairs test
  • 23. Table 4: Correlation Between Various Parameters And Marginal Bone Level 2
  • 24. Table 4 [continued]: Correlation Between Various Parameters And Marginal Bone Level
  • 25.
    • Present study was carried out to evaluate the
    • factors influencing the survival and success rate of
    • dental implants… we found that
    • We had 100% survival with optimum health of
    • success as per the criteria laid down by …
    • Misch et al 2008 ..
    • Also found no correlation between implant
    • diameter and crestal bone loss..
    • Increase in implant diameter … 3.5 fold reduction in
    • crestal strain.. Petrie C.S et al 2002
  • 26.
    • In our study it was found that there was no significant
    • bone loss seen between final cementation and
    • 6 month post cementation ..
    • Misch et al 1999, Miyata et al 2000.
    • Wilderman et al 1999.. Mean horizontal bone loss after osseous surgery … 0.8mm.
    • We also could not find any signifi cant correlation
    • between the amount of torque and bone loss around
    • implants.
  • 27.
    • This may be :
    • - All the surgeries done in D3 bone quality
    • was done by modified drilling protocol. .
    • Schnitmann et al 1979, Albreksson et al 1985
    • Bone quality dental implant design minimizes overall
    • implant failure and crestal bone loss..
    • Misch C1999
    • Bone density .. Influences primary implant stability..
    • Important factor for implant success
    • Turkyilmaz et al 2008
  • 28.
    • Thus to conclude it can be said that all 30 implants in our study were very successful and survived with a 100% survival rate and were functioning in optimum health as per the success criteria guidelines set by the ICOI Pisa Consensus conference 2008
  • 29.
    • Further long term prospective studies are required to
    • be done for more consistent long term data and results.
  • 30. THANK YOU

×