Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.06919
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Morse taper implant macrodesign, loading protocol and site of installation – retrospective study of 5,601 implants

Macrodesenho do implante cone Morse, protocolo de carregamento e local de instalação – estudo retrospectivo de 5601 implantes

Rafael Coutinho Mello MACHADO; Geninho THOMÉ; Sergio Rocha BERNARDES; Ana Claudia Moreira MELO

Downloads: 0
Views: 41

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The long-term implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation monitoring is extremely important in evaluating parameters that could interfere in the success of the treatment.

Objective: To evaluate the influence of macrodesign (shape of the body and apex), length and diameter, insertion torque, site of installation as well as the loading protocol, on long-term survival rates.

Material and method: The data obtained was from the medical records of rehabilitated patients who had had at least one Morse taper implant surgery done at ILAPEO School between 2006 -2012. Incomplete medical records, from which it would have been impossible to extract all data essential to complete the study, were excluded.

Result: A total of 1,142 patient’s medical records comprised the sample; documenting the progress of 5,601 implants, done in both jaws and mandibles. The final survival rate was 98.31%, over an average time of 37.54 months. The type of implant most used was cylindrical (70.33%). The mean installation torque most evidenced in the study was between 41 and 50 Ncm. A logistical regression analysis showed that none of the following variables, site of installation, body and apex shape designs and length, had any significant statistical influence on implant loss. Torque increase and diameter influenced implant loss while immediate loading favored implant maintenance.

Conclusion: It can be concluded that Morse taper implants present a long-term survival rate that can be lowered by excessive torque, as well as by the diameter of the implant.

Keywords

Dental implantation, dental prosthesis, mouth rehabilitation

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: O monitoramento a longo-prazo de reabilitações implantossupportadas é extremamente importante para avaliação dos parâmetros que podem interferir no sucesso do tratamento.

Objetivo: Avaliar a influência do macrodesenho (forma do corpo e ápice), comprimento e diâmetro, torque de inserção, região de instalação, assim como o protocolo de carregamento, na sobrevivência a longo-prazo.

Material e método: Os dados foram obtidos a partir dos prontuários de pacientes reabilitados com pelo menos um implante cone Morse na Faculdade Ilapeo entre os anos de 2006 e 2012. Prontuários com preenchimento incompleto, que pudesse interferir na coleta de dados foram excluídos da amostra.

Resultado: Um total de 1142 prontuários compôs a amostra, resultando num total 5601 implantes, instalados tanto em mandíbula como em maxila. A taxa de sobrevivência final foi de 98,31%, em um tempo médio de 37,54 meses. O tipo de implante mais utilizado foi o cilíndrico (70,33%). O torque médio de instalação ficou entre 41 e 50 Ncm. Uma análise de regressão logística mostrou que nenhuma das seguintes variáveis, local de instalação, forma do corpo e ápice e comprimento, teve influência estatisticamente significante na perda de implantes. O aumento do torque e o diâmetro influenciaram a perda do implante e a carga imediata favoreceu a estabilidade.

Conclusão: Pode ser concluído que implantes cone Morse apresentam índice de sobrevivência elevado que pode ser influenciado por um torque excessivo assim como pelo diâmetro do implante.
 

Palavras-chave

Implantação dentária, prótese dentária, reabilitação bucal

References

Brånemark P-I, Breine U, Adell R, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson Å. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses: I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3(2):81-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699. PMid:4924041.

Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001;3(1):39-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00127.x. PMid:11441542.

Malo P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Moss SM, Molina GJ. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Mar;142(3):310-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0170. PMid:21357865.

Levin L. Dealing with dental implant failures. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008 May-Jun;16(3):171-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000300002. PMid:19089213.

Pye AD, Lockhart DE, Dawson MP, Murray CA, Smith AJ. A review of dental implants and infection. J Hosp Infect. 2009 Jun;72(2):104-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.02.010. PMid:19329223.

Haas R, Mailath-Pokorny G, Dortbudak O, Watzek G, Polak C, Furhauser R. A long-term follow-up of 76 Bränemark single-tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Feb;13(1):38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130104.x. PMid:12005143.

Duarte AR, Neto JP, Souza JC, Bonachela WC. Detorque evaluation of dental abutment screws after immersion in a fluoridated artificial saliva solution. J Prosthodont. 2013 Jun;22(4):275-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00941.x. PMid:23107466.

Bacchi A, Regalin A, Bhering CL, Alessandretti R, Spazzin AO. Loosening torque of Universal Abutment screws after cyclic loading: influence of tightening technique and screw coating. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Oct;7(5):375-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.5.375. PMid:26576253.

Arnetzl GV, Payer M, Falkensammer F, Arnetzl G. Effect of double conical abutment screw on implant preload. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):553-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12623. PMid:26249208.

Ranieri R, Ferreira A, Souza E, Arcoverde J, Dametto F, Gade-Neto C, et al. The bacterial sealing capacity of morse taper implant-abutment systems in vitro. J Periodontol. 2015 May;86(5):696-702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.140623. PMid:25658884.

Coppedê AR, Bersani E, Mattos MG, Rodrigues RC, Sartori IA, Ribeiro RF. Fracture resistance of the implant-abutment connection in implants with internal hex and internal conical connections under oblique compressive loading: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2009 May-Jun;22(3):283-6. PMid:19548411.

Hernigou P, Queinnec S, Flouzat Lachaniette CH. One hundred and fifty years of history of the Morse taper: from Stephen A. Morse in 1864 to complications related to modularity in hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2013 Oct;37(10):2081-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1927-0. PMid:23715954.

Gil FJ, Herrero-Climent M, Lázaro P, Rios JV. Implant-abutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014 Jul;25(7):1825-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5211-7. PMid:24719176.

Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, Lai JY, Brito C, Döring H, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Feb;102(2):552-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34709. PMid:23533139.

Macedo JP, Pereira J, Vahey BR, Henriques B, Benfatti CAM, Magini RS, et al. Morse taper dental implants and platform switching. The new paradigm in oral Implantology. Eur J Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):148-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.175677. PMid:27011755.

Scarano A, Valbonetti L, Degidi M, Pecci R, Piattelli A, de Oliveira PS, et al. Implant-abutment contact surfaces and microgap measurements of different implant connections under 3-dimensional x-ray microtomography. Implant Dent. 2016 Oct;25(5):656-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000465. PMid:27551879.

Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, Brandetti G, Calasso S. A 36-month follow-up prospective cohort study on peri-implant bone loss of Morse Taper connection implants with platform switching. J Oral Sci. 2016;58(1):49-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.58.49. PMid:27021540.

Lima de Andrade C, Carvalho M, Del Bel Cury A, Sotto-Maior B. Biomechanical effect of prosthetic connection and implant body shape in low quality bone of maxillary posterior single-implant supported restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):e92-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4133. PMid:27447166.

Mangano C, Mangano F, Piatelli A, Lezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L, et al. Single-tooth Morse taper connection implants after 1 year of functional loading: a multicentre study on 302patients. Eur J Oral Implantology. 2008;1(4):305-15. PMid:20467637.

Mangano C, Mangano F, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L. Prospective clinical evaluation of 1920 Morse taper connection implants: results after 4 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Mar;20(3):254-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01649.x. PMid:19397637.

Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli JA, Tettamanti L, Figliuzzi M, d’Avila S, et al. Prospective evaluation of 2,549 Morse taper connection implants: 1- to 6-year data. J Periodontol. 2011 Jan;82(1):52-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100243. PMid:20653436.

Mangano C, Iaculli F, Piattelli A, Mangano F. Fixed restorations supported by Morse-taper connection implants: a retrospective clinical study with 10-20 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Oct;26(10):1229-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12439. PMid:24954285.

Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: a new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Feb;26(1):9-17. PMid:16515092.

Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lindhe J. Bone reactions to longstanding functional load at implants: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Sep;32(9):925-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00747.x. PMid:16104954.

Canullo L, Rasperini G. Preservation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues using platform switching of implants placed in immediate extraction sockets: a proof-of-concept study with 12- to 36-month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Nov-Dec;22(6):995-1000. PMid:18271382.

Mijiritsky E, Mazor Z, Lorean A, Levin L. Implant diameter and length influence on survival: Interim results during the first 2 years of function of implants by a single manufacturer. Implant Dent. 2013 Aug;22(4):394-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31829afac0. PMid:23811719.

Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 May;23(5):515-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02410.x. PMid:22313216.

Olate S, Lyrio MC, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;68(2):414-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.002. PMid:20116716.

Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF Jr, Moreno A, Pellizzer EP. Longevity of dental implants in type IV bone: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;43(9):1108-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.02.016. PMid:24679842.

Turkyilmaz I, Aksoy U, McGlumphy EA. Two alternative surgical techniques for enhancing primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla: a clinical study including bone density, insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis data. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Dec;10(4):231-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00084.x. PMid:18384409.

Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Mar;44(3):377-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023. PMid:25467739.

Widmark G, Friberg B, Johansson B, Sindet-Pedersen S, Taylor A. Mk III: a third generation of the self-tapping Brånemark system implant, including the new Stargrip internal grip design. A 1-year prospective four-center study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(4):273-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00211.x. PMid:15127999.

Krebs M, Schmenger K, Neumann K, Weigl P, Moser W, Nentwig GH. Long-term evaluation of ANKYLOS® dental implants, part I: 20-year life table analysis of a longitudinal study of more than 12,500 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17(Suppl 1):e275-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12154. PMid:24103113.

Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant-abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Nov;83:153-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.07.022. PMid:28780384.
 

5dcd42cb0e88255c23bf58f1 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections