Dental implantlarýn protetik restorasyon tipleri

GÝRÝÞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalýþmanýn amacý, Türk toplumundaki farklý dental implant üstü protetik restorasyon sýklýðý ve tiplerinin incelenmesidir.
YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Diþhekimliði Fakültesi Protetik Diþ Tedavisi Anabilim Dalý’nda, dijital kayýt sistemi incelenerek retrospektif bir deðerlendirme yapýldý. Hastalarýn yaþý, cinsiyeti, diþsiz ve implant uygulanmýþ bölgeleri, yerine konan eksik diþ sayýsý ve restorasyon tipi kaydedildi. Elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analizinde tanýmlayýcý yöntemler ve Ki-Kare testi kullanýldý. Anlamlýlýk p< 0,05 düzeyinde deðerlendirildi.
BULGULAR: Çalýþmaya toplamda 368 hastaya ait ve 116 hastanýn (%31,5) üst çenesine, 179 hastanýn (%48,6) alt çenesine ve 73 hastanýn (%19,8) hem alt hem üst çenesine yerleþtirilen toplam 1143 adet implant dahil edilmiþtir. Ýmplantlar 58 hastada anterior bölgeye (%15,8), 245 hastada posterior bölgeye (%66,6) ve 65 hastada hem anterior hem de posterior bölgeye (%17,7) yerleþtirilmiþtir. 209 hastanýn (%56,8) tek üyeli sabit protez (S-FPDs), 83 hastanýn (%22,6) çok üyeli sabit protez (M-FPDs), 44 hastanýn (%12) hem S-FPDs hem de M-FPDs ile tedavi edildiði gözlenmiþtir. 32 hastada (%8,7) overdenture protez varlýðý tespit edilmiþtir.
TARTIÞMA ve SONUÇ: Dental implantlarla tedavi edilen hastalarýn büyük çoðunluðunda protetik restorasyon tipi olarak tek üyeli sabit protez tercih edilmiþtir. Ýmplant kullanýlarak en sýk tedavi edilen alanlar alt çene ve posterior bölgelerdir.

Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evalute the prevalence of different prosthetic restoration types of dental implants in a Turkish subpopulation.
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted by examining the digital patient record system of the faculty. Age, gender, edentulism, implant sites, replaced tooth numbers and restoration types were recorded. Descriptive statistical methods and Chi-square test were used to analyze data. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.
RESULTS: There were 368 patients with 1143 implants which were placed to maxilla in 116 patients (31.5%), mandible in 179 patients (48.6%), and maxilla and mandible in 73 patients (19.8%). They were in anterior region in 58 patients (15.8%), posterior region in 245 patients (66.6%), and anterior and posterior region in 65 patients (17.7%). Two hundred and nine patients (56.8%) had single-unit fixed partial dentures (S-FPDs), 83 patients (22.6%) had multi-unit fixed partial dentures (M-FPDs), 44 patients (12%) had both S-FPDs and M-FPDs, and 32 patients (8.7%) had overdentures.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The great majority of patients treated with dental implants had S-FPDs. Only 8% of patients had overdentures. The most implant treated sites were mandible and posterior regions.