PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(01): 054-062
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715551
Original Article

Change in the Dominant Side of Chewing as a Serious Factor for Adjusting the Prophylaxis Strategy for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis of Bounded Lateral Defects

Angelina O. Zekiy
1   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
,
Evgenii A. Bogatov
2   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry named after E.V. Borovsky, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
,
Igor A. Voronov
3   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, PFUR Medical Institute, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
,
Martiros S. Sarkisyan
3   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, PFUR Medical Institute, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
,
Ernest Llaka
3   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, PFUR Medical Institute, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The main purpose of this article is to study the effect of a change in the dominant side of chewing after prosthetics with fixed structures on implants on the main indicators of osseointegration, adaptation to dentures, and the clinical dental status of patients.

Materials and Methods In a clinical trial, an analysis was made of the adaptation of 64 patients to intraosseous implant-supported fixed dentures and 56 apparently healthy volunteers. The examination complex included determination of the functionally dominant side of chewing, gnathodynamometry and electromyography indicators of masticatory muscles, and radiological osseointegration criteria. The overall treatment outcomes were evaluated using a visual analogue scale and an objective medical questionnaire, “Prognosis of Adaptation to Orthopedic Structures.”

Results Patients were divided into two subgroups: with a change in the dominant side of chewing after completion of orthopaedic treatment (40 cases) and without a change in the dominant side of chewing (24 cases). In the second subgroup of patients, in contrast to the first subgroup, relatively better indicators of gnathodynamometer and electromyography were observed. So, in the first group, gnathodynamometry indicators on the dominant side were 255.7 N and in the second group 225 N after 9 to 12 months. Electromyography indices amounted to (198.5 μV s) to (166.3 μV s) after 9 to 12 months. Bone density remained at the required level, and overall treatment outcomes were higher. Namely, the compact plate of the alveolar ridge was preserved, and the condition of the bone tissue around the implants testified to stable osseointegration. The participation of surface masticatory muscles in adaptation of patients to intraosseous implant-supported fixed orthopaedic structures and the necessity and importance of changing the dominant chewing side for the general outcomes of orthopaedic treatment have been discussed.

Conclusions It has been established that a change in the functionally dominant chewing side is accompanied by relatively unstable indicators of chewing function, which is combined with increased loads on the installed prostheses during 3 to 6 months of adaptation. This must be taken into account when planning an individual patient adaptation complex for dental orthopaedic structures.

Keywords

dental implantation - osseointegration - peri-implantitis - partial loss of teeth - chewing function - gnathodynamometry - electromyography - visual analogue scale - adaptation to dentures


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. August 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fernandez-Estevan L, Selva-Otaolaurruchi EJ, Montero J, Sola-Ruiz F. Oral health-related quality of life of implant-supported overdentures versus conventional complete prostheses: retrospective study of a cohort of edentulous patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20 (04) e450-e458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Müller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2013; 92 (Suppl. 12) 154S-160S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, Panda SK, Oommen VM, Prasad A. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: a retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017; 7 (06) 351-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bassi F, Carr AB, Chang TL. et al. Clinical outcomes measures for assessment of longevity in the dental implant literature: ORONet approach. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26 (04) 323-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza EdosS. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44 (03) 377-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zanetti EM, Pascoletti G, Calì M, Bignardi C, Franceschini G. Clinical assessment of dental implant stability during follow-up: what is actually measured, and perspectives. Biosensors (Basel) 2018; 8 (03) e68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, Lee YS, Park PK. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3 (04) 204-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Toutios A, Ouni S, Laprie Y. Estimating the control parameters of an articulatory model from electromagnetic articulograph data. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129 (05) 3245-3257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Damiati L, Eales MG, Nobbs AH. et al. Impact of surface topography and coating on osteogenesis and bacterial attachment on titanium implants. J Tissue Eng 2018; 9: 2041731418790694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Greenberg AM. Advanced dental implant placement techniques. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017; 51 (03) (Suppl. 01) S76-S89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Córdoba A, Manzanaro-Moreno N, Colom C. et al. Quercitrin nanocoated implant surfaces reduce osteoclast activity in vitro and in vivo. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19 (11) e3319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Menezes HH, Naves MM, Costa HL. et al. Effect of surgical installation of dental implants on surface topography and its influence on osteoblast proliferation. Int J Dent 2018; 2018: 4089274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Novochadov VV, Krylova AS, Anikeev NA. et al. The functionalizing bioactive surface of screw titanium implants with chitosan: fabrication and surface features. Eur. J. Mol. Biotech 2016; 4 (04) 139-147
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Wang J, Meng F, Song W. et al. Nanostructured titanium regulates osseointegration via influencing macrophage polarization in the osteogenic environment. Int J Nanomedicine 2018; 13: 4029-4043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sirak SV, Sletov AA, Gandylyan KS, Dagueva MV. Direct dental implantation in patients with included dentition defects. Medical News of the North Caucasus 2011; 21 (01) 51-54
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Teles FR, Teles RP, Uzel NG. et al. Early microbial succession in redeveloping dental biofilms in periodontal health and disease. J Periodontal Res 2012; 47 (01) 95-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zekiy AO. Salivary markers of inflammation and osteoresorption to evaluate dental implant adaptation. J. Volgograd State Med. Univ 2015; 4: 63-66
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Thoma DS, Brandenberg F, Fehmer V, Büchi DL, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Randomized controlled clinical trial of all-ceramic single tooth implant reconstructions using modified zirconia abutments: radiographic and prosthetic results at 1 year of loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (03) 462-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tonetti M, Palmer R. Working Group 2 of the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology. Clinical research in implant dentistry: study design, reporting and outcome measurements: consensus report of Working Group 2 of the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 (Suppl. 12) 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Albrektsson T, Canullo L, Cochran D, De Bruyn H. “Peri-implantitis”: a complication of a foreign body or a man-made “disease”. Facts and fiction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (04) 840-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hong DGK, Oh J-H. Recent advances in dental implants. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39 (01) 33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Elias CN, Rocha FA, Nascimento AL, Coelho PG. Influence of implant shape, surface morphology, surgical technique and bone quality on the primary stability of dental implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012; 16: 169-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kandasamy B, Samson EP, Yaqoob A, Pandey P, Deenadayalan S, Das I. Evaluation of clinical parameters in implant maintenance phase for prevention of peri-implantitis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018; 8 (04) 361-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Isabel CA, Moysés MR, van der Bilt A, Gameiro GH, Ribeiro JC, Pereira LJ. The relationship between masticatory and swallowing behaviors and body weight. Physiol Behav 2015; 151: 314-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 McCrea SJJ. An analysis of patient perceptions and expectations to dental implants: is there a significant effect on long-term satisfaction levels?. Int J Dent 2017; 2017: 8230618
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Eberhard L, Braun S, Wirth A, Schindler HJ, Hellmann D, Giannakopoulos NN. The effect of experimental balancing interferences on masticatory performance. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41 (05) 346-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ahlers MO, Bernhardt O, Jakstat HA. et al. Motion analysis of the mandible: concept for standardized evaluation of computer-assisted recording of condylar movements. Zeitschrift für Kraniomandibuläre Funktion 2014; 6: 333-352
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Fuentes R, Arias A, Lezcano MF, Saravia D, Kuramochi G, Dias FJ. Systematic standardized and individualized assessment of masticatory cycles using electromagnetic 3D articulography and computer scripts. BioMed Res Int 2017; 2017: 7134389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Diment LE, Thompson MS, Bergmann JHM. Clinical efficacy and effectiveness of 3D printing: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017; 7 (12) e016891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dolgalev AA, Goman MV, Zaborovets IA. Assessment of patient adaptation to implant-supported dentures from the results of electromyographic studies. Russian J Dentistry 2010; x (05) 18-20
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Shah FK, Gebreel A, Elshokouki AH, Habib AA, Porwal A. Comparison of immediate complete denture, tooth and implant-supported overdenture on vertical dimension and muscle activity. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4 (02) 61-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kybkalo AP, Sarkisov KA, Veysgeym LD, Pchelin IYu. Preferential side of chewing, chronical occlusion and cuspid guidance are additional constituents of functional occlusion. Russian Journal of Dentistry 2015; 19 (02) 12-14
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Lohmann CH, Rampal S, Lohrengel M, Singh G. Imaging in peri-prosthetic assessment: an orthopaedic perspective. EFORT Open Rev 2017; 2 (05) 117-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Alvarez-Arenal A, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H. Martin-Fernandez E, Brizuela-Velasco A, Ellacuria-Echebarria J. Effect of implant- and occlusal load location on stress distribution in locator attachments of mandibular overdenture. A finite element study. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9 (05) 371-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nickel J, Spilker R, Iwasaki L. et al. Static and dynamic mechanics of the TMJ: plowing forces, joint load, and tissue stress. Orthod Craniofac Res 2009; 12 (03) 159-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 van der Bilt A. Assessment of mastication with implications for oral rehabilitation: a review. J Oral Rehabil 2011; 38 (10) 754-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Durso FT, Geldbach KM, Corballis P. Detecting confusion using facial electromyography. Hum Factors 2012; 54 (01) 60-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kanehira Y, Arai K, Kanehira T, Nagahisa K, Baba S. Oral health-related quality of life in patients with implant treatment. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9 (06) 476-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Shemonaev VI, Klauchek SV, Maloletkova AA, Shemonaev AV. The method of determining adaptation to orthopedic dental structures. RUS Patent 2441590. 2012
  • 40 Graves CV, Harrel SK, Rossmann JA. et al. The role of occlusion in the dental implant and periimplant condition: a review. Open Dent J 2016; 10: 594-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kubilius M, Kubilius R, Varinauskas V, Žalinkevičius R, Tözüm TF, Juodžbalys G. Descriptive study of mandibular canal visibility: morphometric and densitometric analysis for digital panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45 (07) 20160079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar