Abstract:Objective: The objective of this study was to clinically and radiographically assess the
peri-implant conditions of implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Methods: Two groups were studied: 1) a test group in which osseointegrated implants were
used as orthodontic anchorage, with the application of 200-cN force; and 2) a
control group in which implants were not subjected to orthodontic force, but
supported a screw-retained prosthesis. Clinical evaluations were performed three,
six and nine months after prosthe… Show more
“…This case series showed the conservation of the implant osseointegration despite bone- implant complex movement. Osseointegrated implants used as orthodontic anchorage showed a force resistance, without peri-implant bone changes in animal models or human use [ 31 , 32 ]. Melsen & Lang, in an animal study, have applied orthodontic forces of 100, 200, and 300 g in three different osseointegrated implant groups.…”
Background
Dental implants are sometimes initially placed in a wrong position leading to esthetic damage, which is difficult to solve with prosthetics. Moreover, implants placed in the anterior sector, like ankylosed teeth, are frequently found in a wrong position over time with infraocclusion because of continuous anterior alveolar growth. Different treatments have been proposed to manage the consequences of malpositioned dental implants.
Case presentation
This paper describes a surgical and orthodontic new procedure that can be used to relocate an implant in a wrong position: the Orthodontic Bone Stretching technique (OBS), which involves deep partial osteotomies combined with heavy orthodontic forces. The applied force facilitates esthetic rehabilitation with a movement towards the occlusal plane and can modify the implant axis and the gingival line alignment. This relocation is made possible thanks to a bone stretching phenomenon in the surgical area without immediate mobilization or repositioning of an alveolar segment. Three cases with the need for implant repositioning are presented here and were treated with the OBS technique.
Conclusion
In the three cases presented, implant relocation was successfully performed with the OBS technique and the prosthetic crown was modified to improve esthetic results.
“…This case series showed the conservation of the implant osseointegration despite bone- implant complex movement. Osseointegrated implants used as orthodontic anchorage showed a force resistance, without peri-implant bone changes in animal models or human use [ 31 , 32 ]. Melsen & Lang, in an animal study, have applied orthodontic forces of 100, 200, and 300 g in three different osseointegrated implant groups.…”
Background
Dental implants are sometimes initially placed in a wrong position leading to esthetic damage, which is difficult to solve with prosthetics. Moreover, implants placed in the anterior sector, like ankylosed teeth, are frequently found in a wrong position over time with infraocclusion because of continuous anterior alveolar growth. Different treatments have been proposed to manage the consequences of malpositioned dental implants.
Case presentation
This paper describes a surgical and orthodontic new procedure that can be used to relocate an implant in a wrong position: the Orthodontic Bone Stretching technique (OBS), which involves deep partial osteotomies combined with heavy orthodontic forces. The applied force facilitates esthetic rehabilitation with a movement towards the occlusal plane and can modify the implant axis and the gingival line alignment. This relocation is made possible thanks to a bone stretching phenomenon in the surgical area without immediate mobilization or repositioning of an alveolar segment. Three cases with the need for implant repositioning are presented here and were treated with the OBS technique.
Conclusion
In the three cases presented, implant relocation was successfully performed with the OBS technique and the prosthetic crown was modified to improve esthetic results.
“…21 The literature also points to the use of immediate load on these implants, since the orthodontic force, of small magnitude, would cause a very mild increase in stress at the bone-implant interface. 6,26 Marins et al 23 found that endosseous implants submitted to orthodontic forces over a 3-year period not only remained firm, but also sustained a healthy surrounding periodontal tissue.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marins et al 23 conducted peri-implant evaluation of endosseous implants submitted to orthodontic forces and achieved success on 100% of implants submitted to 200cN forces, indicating that they may be safely used for prosthetic rehabilitation after orthodontic finalization. Similarly, Cravero and Ibañez 11 achieved 100% of success on 93 implants used in the maxilla and mandible.…”
The demand for orthodontic treatment in adults has been increasing. However, these patients often require a multidisciplinary approach, due to the lack of posterior teeth, requiring additional anchorage. The skeletal anchorage by endosseous implants is an option, since they may be used later for prosthetic rehabilitation. The application of immediate load on these appliances for orthodontic movement may reduce the costs and total treatment time. This paper discusses the utilization of endosseous dental implants with immediate load for absolute anchorage for orthodontic movement, with later utilization for prosthetic rehabilitation.
“…The implementation of the concept of osseointegration allowed a safe, predictable and durable solution for oral rehabilitation, thus stimulating the development of researches aimed at analyzing the use of dental implants for orthodontic anchorage without compromising the osseointegration (Linkonw, 1969;Majzoub et al, 1999;Saito et al, 2000;Melsen & Lang, 2001;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001a;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001b;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001c;Huang, Shotwell & Wang, 2005;Oyonarte, Pilliar, Deporter & Woodside, 2005;Hsieh et al,2008;Cravero & Ibañez, 2008;Palagi et al, 2010;Ferrari et al, 2015;Podaropoulos et al, 2016;Marins et al, 2016;Rismanchian et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of these studies were performed using animal models (Linkonw, 1969;Majzoub et al, 1999;Saito et al, 2000;Melsen & Lang, 2001;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001a;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001b;Gotfredsen, Berglundh & Lindhe, 2001c;Huang, Shotwell & Wang, 2005;Oyonarte, Pilliar, Deporter & Woodside, 2005;Hsieh et al,2008;Ferrari et al, 2015;Podaropoulos et al, 2016;Rismanchian et al, 2017, assembling the histological analysis in addition to the clinical and radiographic analysis, while a few studies in humans (Cravero & Ibañez, 2008;Palagi et al, 2010;Marins et al, 2016) performed clinical, radiographic and Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) with the purpose of verifying the bone region around the implants, its stability and possible changes in the implant position.…”
Este avaliou a influência da força ortodôntica em implantes submetidos a carga imediata. Para isso foram selecionados pacientes com ausência de dente posterior mandibular, que estão em tratamento ortodôntico cujo planejamento se faz necessário ancoragem esquelética. Os pacientes foram submetidos a cirurgia de instalação de implantes com conexão protética Cone Morse e torque de 45 N.cm. Em seguida, foi realizada a moldagem, confecção e instalação dos provisórios em infraoclusão. Em seguida, foram feitas as fixações ortodônticas de tubo duplo inferior de Edgewise / Ricketts e, em seguida, iniciada a mecânica dos arcos de acompanhamento para a verticalização dos molares, sustentados pelo implante com variação entre 50-150 g, por 6 meses. Foram realizadas análises perda óssea marginal e de frequência de ressonância (RFA) nos períodos T0 (imediatamente após a instalação do provisório) e T1 (180 dias). Foram selecionados 9 pacientes totalizando 10 implantes mandibulares. Porém apenas 5 implantes apresentaram estabilidade primária superior à 45N.cm. Na análise da perda óssea marginal, notou-se perda óssea de 1,21 ± 1,66 mm, sendo que não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre a região mesial (1,09 ± 1,6mm) e distal (1,34 ± 1,9mm) (P = 0.690). Já na análise RFA, houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os períodos T0 (67,3 ± 11,7) e T1 (76,8 ± 4,95) com valor de P=0,008. A força ortodôntica não interfere na estabilidade de implantes de carga imediata. Novos estudos com maiores períodos de acompanhamento e avaliação são necessários para se obter resultados mais consistentes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.