Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

°³¹æµÈ ÀÎÁ¢¸é Á¢ÃËÀÌ ÀÎÁ¢ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

Effect of open proximal contact on adjacent tooth and implant

±¸°­È¸º¹ÀÀ¿ë°úÇÐÁö 2022³â 38±Ç 1È£ p.9 ~ 17
¹®¼ÒÇö, ±è±¤À±, Á¶¼ºÇö, ¼ÛÁÖÇå, ±èÈñÁß,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹®¼ÒÇö ( Moon So-Hyun ) - Chosun Dental Hospital Department of Prosthodontics
±è±¤À± ( Kim Gwang-Yun ) - Chosun University College of Dentistry Department of Prosthodontics
Á¶¼ºÇö ( Cho Sung-Hun ) - Chosun Dental Hospital Department of Prosthodontics
¼ÛÁÖÇå ( Song Joo-Hun ) - Chosun University College of Dentistry Department of Prosthodontics
±èÈñÁß ( Kim Hee-Jung ) - Chosun University College of Dentistry Department of Prosthodontics

Abstract

¸ñÀû: ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº °³¹æµÈ ÀÎÁ¢¸é Á¢ÃËÀÌ ÀÎÁ¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ´ÂÁö ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

¿¬±¸ Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°úº´¿ø¿¡¼­ 2008ºÎÅÍ 2018³â »çÀÌ¿¡ °³¹æµÈ ÀÎÁ¢¸é Á¢ÃËÀ¸·Î Á¦ÀÛµÈ ±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¼öº¹¹°À» ÀåÂøÇÑ È¯ÀÚ Áß¿¡¼­ À¯Áö°ü¸®±â°£ÀÌ ÃÖ¼Ò 3³â ÀÌ»óÀÌ°í ÀÎÁ¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¾Æ°¡ °Ç°­Çϸ鼭 ´ëÇÕÄ¡°¡ °íÁ¤¼º ¼öº¹¹°ÀÎ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ 20°³ ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© ½ÇÇ豺(Group A)À¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ¼±Á¤±âÁØ ÇÏ¿¡ °°Àº ±â°£ Åë»óÀûÀÎ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î Á¦ÀÛµÈ ±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀÓÇöõÆ® 20°³¸¦ ´ëÁ¶±º(Group B)À¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ ±×·ì»çÀÌ¿¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿Í Á¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡ÀÇ ¿ì½Ä, ½ÄÆí¾ÐÀÔ, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ º¯¿¬°ñ »ó½ÇÀ» ºñ±³ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: Group A°ú Group B »çÀÌ¿¡ Ä¡¾Æ¿ì½Ä°ú ½ÄÆí¾ÐÀÔ ¹× º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼öÀÇ ¹ß»ýºóµµ´Â Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀǼºÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
Group A¿Í Group BÀÇ Æò±Õ º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö¾çÀº °¢±â 0.80 ¡¾ 0.39 mm, 1.1 ¡¾ 0.43 mm¿´À¸¸ç, µÎ ±×·ì»çÀÌ¿¡ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

°á·Ð: ÀÌ ½ÇÇèÀÇ °á°ú³»¿¡¼­, °³¹æµÈ ÀÎÁ¢¸é Á¢ÃËÀ» °¡Áø ÀÓÇöõÆ® º¸Ã¶Àº ÀÎÁ¢ÇÏ´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡¿Í ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ¾î¶°ÇÑ À¯ÇØÇÑ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¹Ç·Î ¼±ÅÃÀûÀÎ »óȲ¿¡¼­ ÀÓ»ó¿¡ Àû¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how open contacts impact the natural teeth and dental implant prostheses.

Materials and Methods: Following criteria were used to select 20 implant crowns with open proximal contacts as the experimental group (Group A): the restorations were delivered in Chosun University Dental Hospital between 2008 and 2018, the restorations are in the posterior region, opposing teeth are fixed dental prostheses, neighboring teeth are sound natural teeth, the patient had been on the maintenance program for at least 3 years. Another 20 implant crowns with closed proximal contacts were selected as the control group (Group B) using the same criteria. Between the two groups, dental caries and food impaction of the neighboring natural teeth and marginal bone-loss of the implants were compared and evaluated.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B in the occurrence rates of dental caries, food impaction, and marginal bone-loss. The amount of marginal bone-loss, however, revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups, with Group A showing 0.80 ¡¾ 0.39 mm loss and Group B showing 1.1 ¡¾ 0.43 mm loss.

Conclusion: Implant prostheses with open contacts could be clinically considered in select cases as such restorations revealed no harmful effects on neighboring teeth and implant restorations within the perimeters of this study.

Å°¿öµå

°³¹æµÈ ÀÎÁ¢¸é Á¢ÃË; ½ÄÆí¾ÐÀÔ; º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö
open proximal contact; food impaction; marginal bone loss

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI