Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¹«ÇÇÆÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¼ö¼ú¿¡¼­ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡ÀÇ Å©±â°¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ Á¶Á÷ÀÇ Ä¡À¯¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

The effects of tissue punch diameter on healing around implants in flapless implant surgery

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 47±Ç 3È£ p.301 ~ 311
À̵ÎÇü, Á¤½Â¹Ì, ÃÖº´È£,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À̵ÎÇü ( Lee Du-Hyeong ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ¿øÁÖÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶°ú
Á¤½Â¹Ì ( Jeong Seung-Mi ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ¿øÁÖÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖº´È£ ( Choi Byung-Ho ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ¹«ÇÇÆÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¼ö¼ú¹ýÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ ½Ä¸³ÇÒ ºÎÀ§¿¡ ȯ»óÇüÀÇ Àý°³¸¦ ÇÊ¿ä·Î ÇÑ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡ÀÇ »ç¿ëÀ» À§ÇÑ ÁöħÀ» ¸¸µå´Â µ¥ µµ¿òÀ» ÁÖ°íÀÚ ¼º°ßÀÇ ÇϾǿ¡¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ Á¶Á÷ÀÇ Ä¡À¯¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ´Â ½ÇÇèÀÌ ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù.

¿¬±¸Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 6 ¸¶¸®ÀÇ ¼º°ß¿¡¼­ ÇϾÇÀÇ ¾çÃø¿¡ ¹«Ä¡¾ÇÀÇ ÆòÆíÇÑ Ä¡Á¶Á¦¸¦ ¸¸µé¾ú´Ù. 3 °³¿ù µ¿¾ÈÀÇ Ä¡À¯ ±â°£ ÈÄ, 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Àý°³ÇÏ°í ¾çÃø¿¡ °¢°¢ 3°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® (Á÷°æ 4.0 mm)¸¦ ½Ä¸³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×¸®°í Áï½Ã Ä¡À¯Áö´ëÁÖ (Á÷°æ 4.5 mm)¸¦ ¿¬°áÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× ÈÄ Ä¡À¯ ±â°£ µ¿¾È ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ Á¡¸·À» ÀÓ»óÀû, ¹æ»ç¼±ÇÐÀû ±×¸®°í Á¶Á÷ÇÐÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Æò°¡ ¿ä¼Ò´Â Ä¡Àº Áö¼ö, Žħ½Ã ÃâÇ÷, Ä¡ÁÖ Å½Ä§ ±íÀÌ, º¯¿¬°ñ »ó½Ç ±×¸®°í ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ Á¶Á÷ÀÇ ¼öÁ÷ÀûÀÎ º¯È­ÀÌ´Ù.

°á °ú: ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ ÈÄ Ä¡À¯ ±â°£ µ¿¾È¿¡ 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡ ±º »çÀÌ¿¡ Á¢ÇÕ »óÇÇÀÇ ±æÀÌ, Ä¡ÁÖ Å½Ä§ ±íÀÌ, º¯¿¬°ñ »ó½ÇÀÌ À¯ÀÇÇÒ ¸¸ÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ °üÂûµÇ¾ú´Ù (P < .05). 3 mm ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÑ °æ¿ì°¡ 4 mm ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÑ °Í¿¡ ºñÇØ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î Á¢ÇÕ »óÇÇÀÇ ±íÀ̴ ª¾Ò°í, Ä¡ÁÖ Å½Ä§ ±íÀÌ´Â ¾è¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö·®ÀÌ Àû¾ú´Ù.

°á ·Ð: ¹«ÇÇÆÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¼ö¼ú¿¡¼­ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡ÀÇ Á÷°æÀº ÃÖÀûÀÇ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ¹ÐÆóÀÇ Çü¼º°ú ¿¬Á¶Á÷ÀÇ Ä¡À¯¿¡ ÀÖ¾î Áß¿äÇÑ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ÇÑ´Ù. ¼±ÅÃµÈ Ä¡À¯Áö´ëÁÖº¸´Ù ¾à 1 mm ÀÛÀº Á÷°æÀÇ ¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖº¯ Á¡¸·°ú ±ä¹ÐÇÑ Á¢ÃËÀ» ÀÌ·ê ¼ö ÀÖ°í â»ó Ä¡À¯°¡ °¡Àå ¾çÈ£ ÇÏ´Ù.

Statement of problem: Flapless implant surgery using a soft tissue punch device requires a circumferential excision of the mucosa at the implant site. To date, Although there have been several reports on clinical outcomes of flapless implant surgeries, there are no published reports that address the appropriate size of the soft tissue punch for peri-implant tissue healing.

Purpose: In an attempt to help produce guidelines for the use of soft tissue punches, this animal study was undertaken to examine the effect of soft tissue punch size on the healing of peri-implant tissue in a canine mandible model.

Material and Methods: Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of six mongrel dogs. After a three month healing period, three fixtures (diameter, 4.0 mm) were placed on each side of the mandible using 3 mm, 4 mm, or 5 mm soft tissue punches. During subsequent healing periods, the peri-implant mucosa was evaluated using clinical, radiological, and histometric parameters, which included Gingival Index, bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, marginal bone loss, and vertical dimension measurements of the peri-implant tissues.

Results: The results showed significant differences (P < 0.05) between the 3 mm, 4 mm and 5 mm tissue punch groups for the length of the junctional epithelium, probing depth, and marginal bone loss during healing periods after implant placement. When the mucosa was punched with a 3 mm tissue punch, the length of the junctional epithelium was shorter, the probing depth was shallower, and less crestal bone loss occurred than when using a tissue punch with a diameter ¡Ã 4 mm.

Conclusion: Within the limit of this study, the size of the soft tissue punch plays an important role in achieving optimal healing. Our findings support the use of tissue punch that 1 mm smaller than implant itself to obtain better peri-implant tissue healing around flapless implants.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÓÇöõÆ®;¹«ÇÇÆÇ;¿¬Á¶Á÷ ÆÝÄ¡;ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁÖÀ§ Á¶Á÷
dental implant;flapless;tissue punch;peri-implant tissue

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed