Detectability of biomechanical risk factors in patients with fixed dentures on dental implants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Long-term results of orthopedic rehabilitation of patients with partial and total tooth loss using implants revealed a considerable number of failures and complications. Periodontopathogenic microfloral activity resulting from poor oral hygiene is the most studied cause of implant removals and development of periimplant chronic inflammation. To a much lesser extent, biomechanical risk factors influence the effectiveness of prosthetics on implants. In particular, information on adverse biomechanical factors in individuals with dental implants is insufficient.

AIM: To analyze the frequency of detection of unfavorable biomechanical conditions for the functioning of prostheses on implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the results of clinical and X-ray examination of 417 patients with 1,222 intraosseous implants, who have completed fixed prosthetics for partial absence of teeth 10 years ago, the biomechanical conditions for the functioning of implants were evaluated. The density and volume of the bone tissue, previous bone grafting, cortical bone thickness, implant length and diameter, characteristics of the junction with the abutment, position of the implant relative to the alveolar ridge, ratio of the implants and prosthetic units in fixed prostheses, presence of occlusive supracontacts on implants, degree of replacement of dentition defects, presence of approximal contacts, association with teeth, and load type were collected.

RESULTS: A thin cortical bone, as an inadequate biomechanical condition, was found in 65.7% of the implants, low bone density in 32.3%, and insufficient and uncompensated bone volume in 15.5%. Implant overload caused by the absence of approximal contacts with adjacent teeth or prostheses was detected in 60.3% of implants, occlusive supracontacts in 58.4%, installation of narrow and short implants 29.1% and 15.5%, respectively, and installation of implants with a slope in 33.1%. Incomplete replacement of the dentition defect and consequently increased functional load were found in 57.3% and 28.1% of implants, respectively, and an insufficient number of support implants were found in 21.5%. The combination of implants with teeth with bridge prosthesis was typical for 19.2%.

CONCLUSION: In modern implantology, inadequate biomechanical conditions influence the qualification of doctors, motivation of patients to the ideal volume of prosthetics on implants, andfunctioning of fixed prostheses on intraosseous implants.

Keywords

implants / 10 years / biomechanics / inadequate conditions

References

[1] Bersanov RU, Mirgazizov MZ, Remizova AA, et al. Funktsional’naya effektivnost’ sovremennykh metodov ortopedicheskoi reabilitatsii bol’nykh s chastichnoi i polnoi adentiei. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2015;(2):39–42. (In Russ).

[2] Берсанов Р.У., Миргазизов М.З., Ремизова А.А., и др. Функциональная эффективность современных методов ортопедической реабилитации больных с частичной и полной адентией // Российский вестник дентальной имплантологии. 2015. № 2. С. 39–42.

[3] Olesov EE, Ivanov AS, Zaslavskiy RS, et al. Clinical and radiological assessment of the condition of implants with fixed structures in the dynamics of 20-year follow-up. Medicine of Extreme Situations. 2021;23(4):29–33. (In Russ). doi: 10.47183/mes.2021.040

[4] Олесов Е.Е., Иванов А.С., Заславский Р.С., и др. Клинико-рентгенологическая оценка состояния имплантатов с несъёмными конструкциями в динамике за 20 лет // Медицина экстремальных ситуаций. 2021. Т. 23, № 4. С. 29–33. doi: 10.47183/mes.2021.040

[5] Ivanov AS, Olesova VN, Maksyukov SYu, et al. The structure of prosthetic constructions based on dental implants in dynamics over 20 years. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2021;(3–4):93–98. (In Russ).

[6] Иванов А.С., Олесова В.Н., Максюков С.Ю., и др. Структура протетических конструкций с опорой на дентальные имплантаты в динамике за 20 лет // Российский вестник дентальной имплантологии. 2021. № 3–4. С. 93–98.

[7] Zaslavsky RS, Olesov EE, Ragulin AV, et al. Dynamics of the state of supporting implants of covering and fixed prostheses in the complete absence of teeth. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2022;26(1):25–30. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2022-26-1-25-30

[8] Заславский Р.С., Олесов Е.Е., Рагулин А.В., и др. Динамика состояния опорных имплантатов покрывных и несъёмных протезов при полном отсутствии зубов // Российский стоматологический журнал. 2022. Т. 26, № 1. С. 25–30. doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2022-26-1-25-30

[9] Olesova VN, Bronstein DA, Stepanov AF, et al. The frequency of inflammatory complications in periimplantary tissues according distant clinical analysis. Stomatolog. 2017;(1):35–37. (In Russ).

[10] Олесова В.Н., Бронштейн Д.А., Степанов А.Ф., и др. Частота развития воспалительных осложнений в периимплантатных тканях по данным отдалённого клинического анализа // Стоматолог. 2017. № 1. С. 35–37.

[11] Ivanov AS, Sakaeva ZU, Morozov DI, et al. Dynamics of hygienic and periodontal indices at the stages of implantological treatment. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2020;24(4):225–228. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2020-24-4-225-228

[12] Иванов А.С., Сакаева З.У., Морозов Д.И., и др. Динамика гигиенических и пародонтальных индексов на этапах имплантологического лечения // Российский стоматологический журнал. 2020. Т. 24, № 4. С. 225–228. doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2020-24-4-225-228

[13] Sakaeva ZU, Zaslavsky RS, Remizova AA, et al. Clinical and microbiological justification of the periodicity of professional oral hygiene during implant treatment. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2020;(3–4):78–82. (In Russ).

[14] Сакаева З.У., Заславский Р.С., Ремизова А.А., и др. Клинико-микробиологическое обоснование периодичности профессиональной гигиены рта на протяжении имплантологического лечения // Российский вестник дентальной имплантологии. 2020. № 3–4. С. 78–82.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector