LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 18 , Issue 5
September/October 2005

Pages 427433


Peri-Implant Bone Loss as a Function of Tooth-Implant Distance

Monika Baron, MD, DMD/Robert Haas, MD, DMD/Werner Baron, DSci/Georg Mailath-Pokorny, MD, DMD


PMID: 16220810

Purpose: In a retrospective study, the radiographs of 39 patients with Applegate-Kennedy Class I or II in the posterior mandible who had been treated with screw-anchored fixed partial dentures supported by IMZ implants and natural teeth were examined for the presence of radiologically detectable peri-implant bone loss. Furthermore, the results were correlated with a mathematical model. Materials and Methods: The radiographs of the implants were digitized, and the areas of bone atrophy mesial and distal to the implants were determined semi-automatically. The data obtained were correlated with the distance between the implant and the abutment tooth. The connection between the tooth-supported crown and the implant-supported denture was made with a vertical screw-lock precision attachment. In a mathematical analysis it was assumed that the fixed partial prosthesis was a rigid beam with 3 elastically embedded supports. Results: The mean distance between the tooth and the first implant was 11.02 mm (SD: 4.24), and between the tooth and the second implant was 20.25 mm (SD: 5.16). Peri-implant bone loss significantly followed a rational function (mesial implant: P = .03, distal implant: P = .02), meaning that, as the tooth-implant distance increased, the area of atrophy became rapidly larger and then diminished gradually. Distances of 8 to 14 mm between the tooth and the first implant and of 17 to 21 mm between the tooth and the second implant were associated with a more pronounced bone loss. These results were also confirmed mathematically. Conclusion: A tooth-implant distance of 8 to 14 mm for the first implant and 17 to 21 mm for the second implant should be avoided for implant placement if prosthetic rehabilitation is planned using a fixed partial denture supported by a premolar and 2 IMZ implants in the mandible. Although this investigation was done on IMZ implants only, the results were confirmed by a mathematical model, which indicated that the observed bone loss may be the same in other types of implants placed in the same positions.
Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:427433.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help