Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2014, vol. 51, nr 1, January-March, p. 27–34

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Age Dependent Alteration in Bone Surrounding Dental Implant

Zmiany w kości otaczającej wszczep zębowy zależne od wieku

Joanna Hadrowicz1,B,C,D,F, Piotr Hadrowicz1,B,C,D,F, Adam Gesing2,A,C, Marcin Kozakiewicz1,A,B,C,E

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

2 Department of Endocrinology and Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

Abstract

Background. Dental implants are versatile solution for the edentulous patients, but implant failure may appear.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine the age dependent alterations of microarchitecture in bone surrounding dental implant.
Material and Methods. The study included 249 dental implants in 107 patients. The range of age was 17–67 years old (45.53 ± 12.1). Intra-oral digital X-rays were taken in standardized conditions in all cases: just after implantation, immediately after functional loading, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months later. The next step was to geometrically align all radiographs. Two regions of interest were indicated in the bone image [ROI1]: in implant neck region, [ROI2]: in periapical region. Afterwards, the entropy of microarchitecture of bone image was calculated and the analysis of simple regression was performed.
Results. No statistical significance between age and radiological texture in implant surrounding bone was found just after implantation, immediately after functional loading and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months after loading (p = 0.201, p = 0.3263, p = 0.0867, p = 0.6844, p = 0.8325, p = 0.4839, p = 0.0677, respectively). Only nine months after loading the implant, the age dependent entropy alteration was found (p = 0.004).
Conclusion. Modern dental implants are as versatile as possible to put to all age patients and entropy is a useful tool for evaluation of bone microarchitecture in standardized radiographs. During remodeling, i.e. 9 months after functional loading in older patients, the authors observed less number of trabeculae than in younger ones.

Streszczenie

Wprowadzenie. Wszczepy zębowe są odpowiednim rozwiązaniem dla bezzębnych pacjentów, lecz może zdarzyć się, że leczenie implantologiczne nie przyniesie oczekiwanych rezultatów.
Cel pracy. Zbadanie zależnych od wieku zmian w radioteksturze kości wokół wszczepów zębowych.
Materiał i metody. Badaniem objęto 249 implantów zębowych wprowadzonych u 107 pacjentów. Zakres wieku wynosił 17–67 lat (45,53 ± 12,1). We wszystkich przypadkach wewnątrzustne zdjęcia były wykonane techniką standaryzowaną: bezpośrednio po implantacji, od razu po obciążeniu i 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 miesięcy później. Następnym krokiem było geometryczne wyrównanie zdjęć. Na zdjęciach uwidaczniających kość zaznaczano 2 miejsca zainteresowania: ROI1 – w obszarze przyszyjkowym, ROI2 – w obszarze przywierzchołkowym. Następnie obliczano entropię radiotekstury obrazu kostnego i wykonywano analizę regresji.
Wyniki. Nie odnaleziono żadnego znaczącego statystycznie powiązania między wiekiem a radiologiczną teksturą kości otaczającej implant ani bezpośrednio po implantacji, ani od razu po obciążeniu oraz 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 miesięcy później (odpowiednio p = 0,201, p = 0,3263, p = 0,0867, p = 0,6844, p = 0,8325, p = 0,4839, p = 0,0677). Wykazano natomiast zmiany w kości zależne od wieku jedynie 9 miesięcy po implantacji (p = 0,004).
Wnioski. Nowoczesne implanty zębowe są odpowiednim rozwiązaniem dla wszystkich pacjentów niezależnie od wieku, a entropia jest przydatnym narzędziem do oceny radiologicznej tekstury kości w zdjęciach standaryzowanych. Około 9 miesięcy po obciążeniu wszczepów u osób starszych pojawiało się mniej beleczek kostnych niż u osób młodych.

Key words

dental implants, radiograph, texture, entropy, age

Słowa kluczowe

wszczepy zębowe, rentgenogram, tekstura, entropia, wiek

References (44)

  1. Kołaciński M., Kozakiewicz M., Materka A.: Textural entropy as a potential feature for quantitative assessment of jaw bone healing process. Arch. Med. Sci. 2013.
  2. Moy P.K., Medina D., Shetty V., Aghaloo T.L.: Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2005, 20, 569–577.
  3. Brocard D., Barthet P., Baysse E., Duffort J.F., Eller P., Justumus P., Marin P., Oscaby F., Simonet T., Benqué E., Brunel G.: A multicenter report on 1,022 consecutively placed ITI Implants: a 7-year longitudinal study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2000, 15, 691–700.
  4. Herrmann I., Lekholm U., Holm S., Kultje C.: Evaluation of patient and implant characteristic as potential prognostic factor for oral implant failures. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2005, 20, 220–230.
  5. Martins M.G., Whaites E.J., Ambrosano G.M., Haiter-Neto F.: What happens if you delay scaning Digora phosphor storage plates(PSPs) for up to 4 hours? Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2006, 35(3), 143–146.
  6. Kozakiewicz M., Bogusiak K., Hanclik M., Denkowski M., Arkuszewski P.: Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two subtraction programs. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2008, 37(1), 40–46.
  7. Bradley J.C.: Age changes in the Vascular supply of the mandible. Br. Dent J. 1972, 132, 142–144.
  8. Nedelman C., Bernic S.: Age changes in mucosa and bone. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1978, 39, 494–501.
  9. Ross Bryant S.: The effect of Age, Jaw Site, and Bone Condition on Oral Implant Outcomes. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1998, 11(5), 470–490.
  10. Moy P.K., Medina D., Shetty V., Aghaloo T.L.: Dental Implant Failure Rates and Associated Risk Factors. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2005, 20(4), 569–577.
  11. Oikarinen K., Raustia A.M., Hartikainen M.: General and local contraindications for endosseal implants-an epidemiological panoramic radiographic study in 65 year old subjects. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1995, 23, 114–118.
  12. Blanchaert R.: Implants in the medically challenged patient. Dent. Clin. North. Am. 1998, 42(1), 35–45.
  13. Matukas V.: Medical risks associated with dental implants. J. Dent. Educ. 1988, 52, 745–747.
  14. Fugazotto P.: Success and failure rates of osseointegrated implants in function in regenerated bone for 6 to51 months: A preliminary report. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1997, 12, 17–24.
  15. Smith R.A., Berger R., Dodson T.: Risk factors associated with dental implants in healthy and medically compromised patients. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1992, 7, 367–372.
  16. Fritz M.: Implant Therapy II. Ann. Periodontol. 1996, 1, 796–815.
  17. Ellen R.P.: Periodontal care for community-dwelling older adults. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1994, 72, 500–506.
  18. Ikebe K., Wada M., Kagawa R., Maeda Y.: Is old age a risk factor for dental implants? Jap. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2009, 45, 59–64.
  19. Garg A.K., Winkler S., Bakaeen L.G., Mekayarajjananonth T.: Dental implants and the geriatric patient. Implant Dent. 1997, 6(3), 168–173.
  20. Warming L., Hassager C., Christiansen C.: Changes in bone mineral density with age in men and women: a longitudinal study. Osteoporosis Int. 2002, 13, 105–112.
  21. Heersche J.N., Bellows C.G., Ishida Y.: The decrease in bone mass associated with aging and menopause. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1998, 79, 14–16.
  22. Freemont A.J., Hoyland J.A.: Morphology, mechanism and pathology of musculoskeletal ageing. J. Pathol. 2007, 211, 252–259.
  23. Goodson III W.H., Hunt T.K.: Wound healing and ageing. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1979, 73, 88–91.
  24. Quirinia A., Viidik A.: The influence of age on the healing of normal and ischemic skin wounds. Mech. Ageing. Dev. 1991, 58, 221–232.
  25. Holm-Pedersen P., Loe H.: Wound Healing in the gingiva of young and old individuals. Scand. J. Dent. Res. 1971, 79, 40–53.
  26. Lindhe J., Socransky S., Nyman S., Westfelt E., Haffajee A.: Effect of age on healing following periodontal therapy. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1985, 12, 774–787.
  27. Roberts W.E., Consalves M.: Aging of bone tissue. [In:] Geriatric Dentistry: A Textbook of Oral Gerontology. Eds.: Holm-Pedersen P., Loe H., Copenhagen Munksgaard 1986, 83–93.
  28. Seeman E.: The dilemma of osteoporosis in men. Am. J. Med. 1995, 98(2A), 76–88.
  29. Shirota T., Ohno K., Suzuki K., Michi K.: The effect of aging on the healing of hydroxylapatite implants. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1993, 51, 51–56.
  30. Mesa F., Munoz R., Noguerol B., de Dios Luna J., Galindo P., O’Valle F.: Multivariate study of factors influencing primary dental implant stability. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2008, 19, 196–200.
  31. Noguerol B., Munoz R., Mesa F., de Dios Luna J., O’Valle F.: Early implant failure. Prognostic capacity of Periotest: retrospective study of a large sample. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2006, 17, 459–464.
  32. Benatti B.B., Neto J.B., Casati M.Z., Sallum E.A., Sallum A.W., Nociti Jr F.H.: Periodontal healing may be affected by ageing: a histologic study in rats. J. Periodontal. Res. 2006, 41, 329–333.
  33. Engfors I., Ortorp A., Jemt T.: Fixed implant-supported prostheses in elderly patients: a 5-year retrospective study of 133 edentulous patients older than 79 years. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2004, 6, 190–198.
  34. Cawood J.I., Howell R.A.: A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1988, 17, 232–236.
  35. Vinter J., Krmpotic-Nemanic J., Hat J., Jalsolvec D.: Does the alveolar process of the maxilla always disappear after loss of the teeth? Laryngol. Rhinol. Otol. 1993, 72, 605–607.
  36. Ulm C.W., Solar P., Gsellmann B., Matejka M., Watzek G.: The edentulous maxillary sinus – a study of physical dimension. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1995, 24, 279–282.
  37. Henny J., Meijer A., Rutger H.K., Batenburg R.H.: Influence of patient age on the success rate of dental implants supporting an overdenture in an edentulous mandible: a 3-Year prospective study., Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2001, 16(4), 522–526.
  38. Bryant S.R., Zar G.A.: Osseointegration of Oral Implants in Older and Younger Adoults. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1998, 13(4), 492–499.
  39. Kondell P.A., Nordenram A., Landt H.: Titanium implants in the treatment of edentulousness: influence of patient’s age on prognosis. Gerodontics 1988, 4, 280–284.
  40. Dao T.T., Anderson J.D., Zarb G.A.: Is osteoporosis a risk factor for osseointegration of dental implants? Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1993, 8, 137–144.
  41. Ochi S., Morris H.F., Winker S.: Patient demographic and implant survival at uncovering: Dental Implant Clinical Research Group Interim Report No. 6. Implant. Dent. 1994, 3, 247–251.
  42. Bryant S.R., Zarb G.A.: Osseointegration of oral implants in older and younger adults. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 1998, 13, 492–499.
  43. Meijer H.J., Batenburg R.H., Raghoebar G.M.: Influence of patient age on the success rate of dental implants supporting an overdenture in an edentulous mandible: a 3-year prospective study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2001, 16, 522–526.
  44. August M., Chung K., Chang Y., Głowacki J.: Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 59, 1285–1289.