Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2012 Jul;50(3):176-183. Korean.
    Published online Jul 31, 2012.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2012.50.3.176
    Copyright © 2012 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    The success rate of Mg-incorporated oxidized implants in partially edentulous patients: a prospective clinical study

    Su-Jung Choi, DDS,1 Jung-Ho Yoo, DDS,1 Ku-Bok Lee, DDS, MSD, PhD,1 and Jin-Wook Kim, DDS, MSD, PhD2
      • 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
      • 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Jin-Wook Kim. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, 2175, Dalgubeoldaero, Daegu, 700-705, Korea. +82 53 600 7575, Email: vocaloe@knu.ac.kr
    Received July 12, 2012; Revised July 18, 2012; Accepted July 19, 2012.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    This study examined the clinical success rate of Mg titanate implants (M Implant system, Shinhung, Korea), which employ a Mg coating method, by evaluating the marginal bone loss and implant stability using radiographs and Osstell®, over a 1 year.

    Materials and methods

    The locations of the implants placement were divided into 4 areas; the maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars. In the maxilla, 8 and 9 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas, respectively. In the mandible, 11 and 51 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas. Marginal bone loss and ISQ of all implants (79) were measured after insertion, mounting the prosthetic appliance, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after loading. The marginal bone loss was measured from the radiograph using XCP bite, which was customized, and the implant stability measured using Osstell®. Fisher's exact test (α=.05) was used to compare the success rates of each region.

    Results

    The mean marginal bone loss for the upper and lower jaws were 1.537 mm and 1.172 mm. The mobility showed a non-significant reduction or increase according with time. The success rates were accounted for 94.12% and 98.39% in the upper and lower jaws; the premolars and molars were accounted for 100% and 96.67%. The two cases of early failure resulted from failure of primary stability during implant insertion. The late failures were not observed for 1 year after adding a loading to the implants.

    Conclusion

    The Mg titanate implant showed good primary stability and good clinical results in both healing and function.

    Keywords
    Mg titanate implant; Marginal bone loss; Implant stability; Implant success rate; Prospective clinical evaluation

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Manufacture of customized resin bite.

    Fig. 2
    Image of installing customized resin bite in XCP.

    Fig. 3
    A: Insertion, B: After 3 months. Periapical radiography with the use of customized XCP bite.

    Fig. 4
    Evaluation of implant mobilization with the use of Osstell®.

    Fig. 5
    Mean marginal bone loss in maxilla and mandible.

    Fig. 6
    Mean ISQ value in maxilla and mandible according to time.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Mean marginal bone loss in maxilla and mandible

    Table 2
    Mean ISQ value in maxilla and mandible according to time

    Table 3
    Survival rates according to implant insertion site

    References

      1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387–416.
      1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11–25.
      1. Cox JF, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical efficacy of osseointegrated dental implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:91–100.
      1. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1–132.
      1. Brånemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-Integrated Prosthese. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago; IL: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 1985.
      1. Albrektsson TO, Johansson CB, Sennerby L. Biological aspects of implant dentistry: osseointegration. Periodontol 2000 1994;4:58–73.
      1. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Osseointegration: A requiem for the periodontal ligament? Int J Periodont Res Dent 1991;11:88–91.
      1. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L, Engevall S, Engquist B, Eriksson AR, Feldmann G, Freiberg N, Glantz PO, Kjellman O, et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988;59:287–296.
      1. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347–359.
      1. Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:69–75.
      1. Tjellström A, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T. Removal torque of osseointegrated craniofacial implants: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:287–289.
      1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI, Lindhe J, Eriksson B, Sbordone L. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1986;15:39–52.
      1. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185–194.
      1. Sundén S, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Accuracy and precision in the radiographic diagnosis of clinical instability in Brånemark dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:220–226.
      1. Barewal RM, Oates TW, Meredith N, Cochran DL. Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:641–651.
      1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155–170.
      1. Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21–24.
      1. Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjörting-Hansen E, Jensen JS, Holmén A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO2-blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:77–84.
      1. Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:668–674.
      1. Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M, Caputo A. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:442–447.
      1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:24–30.
      1. Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, Schnabelrauch M, Kautz AR, Frauchiger VM, Mueller TL, van Lenthe GH, Schlottig F. Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1037–1046.
      1. Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P. Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:261–267.
      1. Tonetti MS, Schmid J. Pathogenesis of implant failures. Periodontol 2000 1994;4:127–138.
      1. Sul YT, Byon E, Wennerberg A. Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid-etched implants: surface chemistry, morphology, pore configurations, oxide thickness, crystal structure, and roughness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:631–640.
      1. Sul YT, Jeong Y, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Oxidized, bioactive implants are rapidly and strongly integrated in bone. Part 1-experimental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:521–526.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson C, Byon E, Albrektsson T. The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 2005;26:6720–6730.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson C, Wennerberg A, Cho LR, Chang BS, Albrektsson T. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:349–359.
      1. Sennerby L, Meredith N. Resonance frequency analysis: measuring implant stability and osseointegration. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19:493–498. 500, 502.
      1. Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:226–233.
      1. Rasmusson L, Meredith N, Cho IH, Sennerby L. The influence of simultaneous versus delayed placement on the stability of titanium implants in onlay bone grafts. A histologic and biomechanic study in the rabbit. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:224–231.
      1. Huang HM, Chiu CL, Yeh CY, Lee SY. Factors influencing the resonance frequency of dental implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1184–1188.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:319–328.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson P, Chang BS, Byon ES, Jeong Y. Bone tissue responses to Mg-incorporated oxidized implants and machine-turned implantsin the rabbit femur. J Appl Biomater Biomech 2005;3:18–28.
    MeSH Terms
    Bicuspid
    Bites and Stings
    Jaw
    Mandible
    Maxilla
    Molar
    Prospective Studies
    Saturn
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 6

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    PERMALINK