Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Editorial | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Login 
Users Online: 346  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 32-36

Analysis of 413 AIDI dental implants: A retrospective study


1 Prosthodontist, Private Practice, USC Advanced Prosthodontic Gruaduate, CEO of AIDI Biomedical Inc., Wiodomar, CA, USA
2 Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Los Angeles, CA, USA
3 Periodontist, Private Practice, Los Angeles, CA, USA
4 Prosthodontist, Private Practice, Wiodomar, CA, USA

Date of Web Publication24-May-2012

Correspondence Address:
William YS Hung
34859 Frederick St. Suite 105 Wildomar
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.96565

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the success of AIDI dental implants placed in partially or completely edentulous jaws restored with fixed prostheses.
Materials and Methods: A total of 413 dental implants were placed between January 2009 and May 2011. Ninety-six dental implants were placed in 15 edentulous jaws of 11 patients (58 dental implants in maxillae and 38 dental implants in mandibles). Forty-six dental implants were placed in 25 anterior partially edentulous jaws of 23 patients. Two hundred and seventy-one dental implants were placed in 66 posterior partially edentulous jaws of 59 patients. The patients included 49 men and 44 women, with a median age of 49.1 years and an age range of 25-80 years at the time of implant surgery. A single implant was placed in 11 jaws (6 maxillae and 5 mandibles), while multiple implants were placed in the other patients. Among the 106 jaws, 15 jaws received full arch rehabilitation and the other jaws were restored with implant-supported fixed partial denture.
Results: Among the 413 implants, 6 maxillary implants and 4 mandibular implants were unsuccessful. The success rate for the implants was 97.58% (97.14% in the maxillae and 98.03% in the mandibles).
Conclusion: The dental implant was designed to improve initial stability in compromised bone, which makes it a proper implant choice for different clinical applications.

Keywords: AIDI implants, dental implant, soluable blasted madia surface, success rate


How to cite this article:
Hung WY, Sherif S, Chang GH, Chen CH. Analysis of 413 AIDI dental implants: A retrospective study. J Dent Implant 2012;2:32-6

How to cite this URL:
Hung WY, Sherif S, Chang GH, Chen CH. Analysis of 413 AIDI dental implants: A retrospective study. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2012 [cited 2022 Jan 25];2:32-6. Available from: https://www.jdionline.org/text.asp?2012/2/1/32/96565


   Introduction Top


The use of osseointegrated implants to support prosthetic reconstruction has become a common treatment modality for patients with partially or completely edentulous jaws. The early studies of Brånemark et al. [1],[2] and Schroeder et al. [3],[4] demonstrated a direct bone-to-titanium contact referred to as osseointegration. These studies reported encouraging mid-term results associated with titanium implants in fully/partially edentulous patients. [5][,6]

Surface properties of implants play an important role in the success of osseointegration. [7] The surface of IDI dental implants has a highly biocompatible roughness that proved to be excellent for osseointegration. [8],[9] The implants are blasted with a resorbable SBM (a resorbable HA crystal) from apex to implant body and then all residues are removed from the blasting material. [10] In comparison to machined implant surfaces and others, this surface has repeatedly proven to elicit a more enhanced bone response. [8]

Thread and implant body design may condense bone and increase initial stability. [11]

The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcome of AIDI dental implants in clinical use.

Macrostructure of aidi dental implants

Platform switching design

The dental implant has a platform switching design [Figure 1] that can reduce stress to crestal bone. [12] Platform switching design can also minimize the loss of crestal bone height. The implant is designed to be placed at bone level. The coronal portion of the implant has a platform switching design, which is intended to maximize the alveolar bone around the collar of the implant and provide soft-tissue support. [13],[14],[15]
Figure 1: AIDI dental implant unique design

Click here to view


Thread design

Microthread

The microthread design [Figure 1], which is located 1.3 mm apical to platform, can counteract marginal bone resorption in accordance with Wolff's law. [16] This design increases the resistance to shear forces significantly, and optimize implant stability in suboptimal clinical conditions. [17] It is worth mentioning that the relocated microthread of dental implant is different from other companies' products, such as Astra Tech® MicroThread implants, which can result in significant bone destruction while unintentional exposure of two-stage implants thread. [18]

Body thread design

The body thread [Figure 1] of AIDI dental implant is a deeper single-thread design (triple-thread design can increase micro-motion). [19],[20] Further, the new design of thread (asymmetric thread design) focuses on increasing apical face angle/decreasing coronal face angle [Figure 2] and narrowing implant apex to reduce resistance of dental implant insertion coupled with underprepared implant site, which can maximize bone preservation. This design allows for gradual expansion of the bone as the implant advances, which is similar to the utilization of osteotome [21],[22] to achieve high insertion torque (90 N cm) and increase initial stability. It is, therefore, possible to facilitate immediate dental implant placement and immediate loading with appropriate occlusal loading even under the circumstances of compromised quality of alveolar bone.
Figure 2: Body thread properties

Click here to view


Sinolift feature

A "sinolift" feature [Figure 1] which forms a concaved internally threaded cavity with different variations is located at the apical end of the implant. This design functions as an osteotome which can simultaneously lift maxillary sinus and condense the bone. [22],[23],[24]

This apical design allows for preparing a narrower-than-typical initial implant osteotomy and placing the implant in a method similar to turning a "corkscrew." A gradual expansion of the maxillary alveolar bone and cortical bone of sinus floor as the implant advances can be achieved, similar to the use of an osteotome [11] to lift the sinus floor but in a much smoother manner to avoid possible complication of rupturing Schneiderian membrane. Therefore, it becomes possible for the dentist to place the dental implant and perform sinus elevation simultaneously in a compromised implant site with a much better result. [24]

Highly compatible sbm surface treatment

The surface of the dental implants has a highly biocompatible roughness that proves to be excellent for osseointegration. [8],[9] The implants are blasted with a resorbable SBM from apex to implant body and then all residues are removed from the blasting material. [10]


   Materials and Methods Top


We identified a total of 93 patients who received the dental implant treatment between January 2009 and May 2011 in four different dental implant centers in California, USA. All patients visited the dental implant centers for replacement of single or multiple teeth with osseointegrated implants. Of the 93 patients, 49 were men and 44 were women. The median age was 49.1 years, with a range of 25-80 years, at the time of implant surgery [Figure 3]. The implantation was performed by following either immediate or delayed surgical protocols. There were 11 cases of completely edentulous jaws (8 maxillae and 7 mandibles) and 91 cases of partially edentulous jaws (25 anterior and 60 posterior jaws). Alveolar availability at the edentulous sites was evaluated by radiograph and physical examination. A single implant was placed in 11 jaws (6 maxillae and 5 mandibles), while multiple implants were placed in the other patients. Among the 106 jaws, 15 received full arch rehabilitation and the other jaws were restored with partially fixed prostheses. After implant surgery, all patients were followed periodically until November 2011.
Figure 3: Distribution of age and sex

Click here to view



   Results Top


A total of 106 jaws from 93 patients had 413 implants placed from January 2009 through May 2011 in four dental implant centers. The reasons for the missing teeth included periodontitis or dental caries (64 cases/68.8%), trauma (5 cases/5.4%), loss of previous implants (4 cases/4.3%), tooth root fracture (5 cases/5.4%), apical lesion (12 cases/12.9%), and congenital absence of teeth (3 cases/3.1%) [Figure 4].
Figure 4: The cause of missing dental articulation

Click here to view


Distribution of the implant sites is shown in [Figure 5]. The majority of the fixtures were placed in the first premolar region of the maxilla and in the first molar region of the mandibles.
Figure 5: Distribution of the fixture implanted

Click here to view


A single implant was placed in 11 jaws (6 maxillae and 5 mandibles), while multiple implants were placed in the other patients. Among the 106 jaws, 15 received full arch rehabilitation and the other jaws were restored with partially fixed prostheses.

The distribution of fixture sizes is shown in [Figure 6]. The fixture with a diameter of 4.3 mm and a length of 10.5 mm was most frequently employed in both the maxilla (11.7%) and the mandibles (10.1%). The other frequently used sizes were 4.3 mm diameter (13.5 mm length) on the maxilla and 4.3 mm diameter (10.5 mm length) on the mandibles. The risk factors associated with implant therapy are shown in [Table 1]. There were 18 smokers (95 implants), 5 patients with dry mouth (28 implants), 4 patients with diabetes (12 implants), 1 patient with a metal allergy (2 implants), and 2 patients with osteoporosis (6 implants). Twenty-two patients admitted that they were bruxors or clenchers (110 implants). However, we do not know how many patients did have parafunction. Among the 413 implants, only 6 maxillary implants and 4 mandibular implants were unsuccessful (success rates: 97.14 and 98.03%, respectively). The overall success rate was 97.58% in this study [Table 2].
Figure 6: Distribution of the fixture size

Click here to view
Table 1: Risk factors of implant therapy

Click here to view
Table 2: Success rate

Click here to view


There were four failed implants related to smokers and six failed implants related to bruxors. However, there were no unsuccessful implants in patients affected by diabetes or metal allergy. Among the 10 failed implants, 5 failed prior to loading and 5 failed after loading.


   Discussion Top


The initial stability is the most important single factor in dental implant surgery. A high insertion torque achieved during dental implant placement can be obtained by a new dental implant design using asymmetric thread design and a narrow implant apex (Paulo Malo) with internal thread, which forms an opposite direction of the outer asymmetric thread design. The asymmetric thread is designed by increasing the apical face angle and reducing the coronal face angle and increasing the length of thread. This design dramatically reduces the insertion resistance and allows continuous osteotome of osseous tissue by progressively condensing and compressing the osseous tissue during dental implant insertion.

The surface properties of implants are key factors for successful osseointegration. [7] Since the surfaces of the dental implants are blasted with a resorbable SBM from apex to implant body, they have a highly biocompatible roughness that proves to be excellent for osseointegration. [8],[9]

Because of the above reasons, the AIDI dental implants can achieve high initial stability and osseointegration. Clinically, it demonstrates a success rate of 97.58%.

Klokkevold et al. showed that there were statistically significant differences in the success rates for dental implants between smokers and nonsmokers, [25] and smoking is thought to have an adverse affect on implant success statistically. However, Klokkevold et al. also showed no difference in the implant success rate between patients with and without diabetes. [25] We found the same result in the present study. Dao et al. also suggested that osteoporosis is not a risk factor for dental implants. [26] In the present study, there were no failed implants in patients with diabetes or osteoporosis. However, it is considered that the factors involved in implant failure in this study were improper (excessive) occlusal overloading, surgical mistake, poor oral hygiene, and insufficient supporting bone, and these factors were exacerbated by smoking and parafunction.


   Conclusion Top


The dental implant was designed to improve initial stability in compromised bone, which makes it a proper implant choice for different clinical applications. Sinolift® feature was designed to function as an osteotome simultaneously lifting the maxillary sinus and condensing the bone.

In summary, it can be concluded from the present retrospective study that SBM-treated surface of slightly tapered dental implant, associated with immediate/delayed dental implant placement, early load of full arch rehabilitation, and a protocol of underprepared implant site, can be a successful treatment protocol in edentulous maxillae or mandibles. The advantages of the immediate implant placement and immediate loading protocols, which can result in reduced morbidity, high patient satisfaction, and relatively low costs of the treatment, should be taken into account for considering it as a viable option.

 
   References Top

1.Brånemark PI, Breine U, Adell R, Hannsson BO, Lindstrom J, Ohman A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;11:81-100.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Brånemark PI, Hannsson B, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Ohman A. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10 year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977;11:1-132.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Schroeder A, Pohler O, Sutter F.Gewebereaktion aufein Titan-Hohlzylinderimplantat mit Titan Spritzschichtoberflache. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd 1976;86:713-27.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F. The reaction of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981;9:t15-35.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Adell R, Lekholm U, Rocler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jem T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J.Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Novaes AB, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:377-83.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.ASTM F86-04(2009) Standard Practice for Surface Preparation and Marking of Metallic Surgical Implants.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Maló P, Nobre Mde A, Petersson U, Wigren S. A pilot study of complete edentulous rehabilitation with immediate function using a new implant design: case series. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;8:223-32.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Schrotenboer J, Tsao YP, Kinariwala V, Wang HL. Effect of Micr othreads and Platform Switching on Crestal Bone Stress Levels: A Finite Element Analysis. J Periodontol 2008;79:2166-72.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling postrestorative crestal bone levels. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:9-17.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Gardner DM. Platform switching as a means to achieving implant esthetics. NY State Dent J 2005;71:34-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Baumgarten H, Cocchetto R, testori T, Meltzer A, Porter S. A new implant design for crestal bone preservation: Initial observations and case report. Pract Proced Aesthetic Dent 2005;17:735-40.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Hansson S. The implant neck: smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implant Res 1999;10:394-405.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Hall J, Miranda-Burgos P, Sennerby L. Stimulation of directed bone growth at oxidized titanium implants by macroscopic grooves: An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;7Suppl 1: S76-82.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Van Assche N, Collaert B, Coucke W, Quirynen M. Correlation between early perforation of cover screws and marginal bone loss: A retrospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:76-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Ma P, Liu HC, Li DH, Lin S, Shi Z, Peng QJ. Influence of helix angle and density on primary stability of immediately loaded dental implants: Three-dimensional finite element analysis. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;42:618-21.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Kong L, Hu K, Li D, Song Y, Yang J, Wu Z, et al. Evaluation of the cylinder implant thread height and width: A dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:65-74.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Misch CE. Scientifi c rational for dental implant design. In: Misch CE, editor. Comtemporary Implant Dentistry. 3ed, St Louis: Mosby;2008. p. 200-29.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: The osteotome technique. Compendium. 1994;15:152, 154-6, 158 passim; quiz 162.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Summers RB. The osteotome technique: Part 2-The ridge expansion osteotomy (REO) procedure. Compendium 1994;15:422, 424, 426, passim; quiz 436.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Summers RB. The osteotome technique: Part 3-Less invasive methods of elevating the sinus floor. Compendium 1994;15:698, 700, 702-4 passim; quiz 710.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Klokkevold PR, Han TJ. How do smoking, diabetes, and periodontitis affect outcomes of implant treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:173-202.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Dao TT, Anderson JD, Zarb GA. Is osteoporosis a risk factor for osseointegration of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:137-44.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5944    
    Printed170    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded626    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal