Dr Sowmya Salian post Graduate Student Department of Periodontics & Oral Implantology S.D.M Dental College Dharwad Dr Srin...
 
<ul><li>The use of dental implants for dental restorations has  </li></ul><ul><li>revolutionized patient care and is incre...
<ul><li>As on date dental implants are possibly the best  </li></ul><ul><li>possible mode to replace missing teeth. </li><...
<ul><li>“ Implant success criteria”  –  by Albreksson et al. .  has been the “ Gold Standard ”  while measuring the  impla...
<ul><li>1993 .. James established.. Implant quality of health  </li></ul><ul><li>scale.. Further ..  Misch in 1993,1998. <...
 
<ul><li>Patients visiting Department of Oral Implantology and  </li></ul><ul><li>Periodontics, S.D.M. College of Dental Sc...
<ul><li>This prospective, longitudinal Cohort study involved a  </li></ul><ul><li>total of 30 sites in 20 subjects[11 male...
<ul><li>Patients  undergoing implant therapy to replace </li></ul><ul><li>either single or multiple unit bridge and full m...
<ul><li>1] Patients with any systemic conditions that may </li></ul><ul><li>influence the survival and success rates of th...
 
<ul><li>All the implant sites were clinically evaluated : </li></ul><ul><li>At the time of implant placement </li></ul><ul...
<ul><li>1] Modified Plaque Index ;  Mombelli et al 1987. </li></ul><ul><li>2] The distance between the implant shoulder an...
<ul><li>Radiographs were obtained using a long cone  </li></ul><ul><li>Technique and taken  </li></ul><ul><li>At the time ...
IMPLANT SHOULDER THREAD PITCH Misch et al 2008
<ul><li>The statistical analysis was done using </li></ul><ul><li>Student’s paired t-test.  </li></ul><ul><li>Wilcoxon mat...
<ul><li>In the present study we found that : </li></ul><ul><li>Around 35% of the implants sites had bleeding on  </li></ul...
<ul><li>70% of implants .. mean diameter of 3.5 -4.3mm  </li></ul><ul><li>mean length of about 10 -14mm. </li></ul><ul><li...
NS= Non -Significant (p > 0.05), S= Significant (p < 0.05) Table 1: Comparison of vertical bone levels (MESIAL) at the imp...
NS= Non -Significant (p > 0.05), S= Significant (p < 0.05) Table 2: Comparison of vertical bone levels (DISTAL) at the imp...
Table 3: Comparison of mPI and GI at cementation and 6 months by wilcoxon matched pairs test
Table 4: Correlation Between Various Parameters And Marginal Bone Level 2
Table 4 [continued]: Correlation Between Various Parameters And Marginal Bone Level
<ul><li>Present study was carried out to evaluate the  </li></ul><ul><li>factors influencing the survival and success rate...
<ul><li>In our study it was found that there was no significant </li></ul><ul><li>bone loss seen between final cementation...
<ul><li>This may be :  </li></ul><ul><li>- All the surgeries done in D3 bone quality </li></ul><ul><li>was done by modifie...
<ul><li>Thus to conclude it can be said that all 30  implants in our study were very successful  and  survived with a 100%...
<ul><li>Further long term prospective studies are required to </li></ul><ul><li>be done for more consistent long term data...
THANK YOU
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dr sowmya sdm2003

516 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
516
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr sowmya sdm2003

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

×