Browse > Article

The Study of Implant Patient's Type and Implant Distribution  

Hong, Sung-Jae (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Paik, Jeong-Won (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Kim, Chang-Sung (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Lee, Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University)
Chai, Jung-Kiu (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Kim, Chong-Kwan (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Cho, Kyoo-Sung (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.32, no.3, 2002 , pp. 539-554 More about this Journal
Abstract
It has been approximately 40 years since $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ first introduced osseo-integration for implants in the early 1960s. Unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. Thus, the awareness of implant treatment has grown rapidly among dentists and patients alike in Korea, as it becomes a widely accepted treatment. The following results on patients type and implant distribution were compiled from 1814 implant cases of 640 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Y University Hospital during 1992 to 2001. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 40,50s accounting for 49% of patients and 56% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 59% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(21%), Mx anterior area(l4%) and Mn anterior area 2%. 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 98% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 2% 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. Compared to women, men are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease. Also, older people are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease rather than dental caries. 5. The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 52% for type III, followed by 23% for type II, 20% for type IV and 0% for type I. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type II, followed by 37% for type III, 7% for type IV and 4% for type I. 6. The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 49% for type C, followed by 34% for type B, 14% for type D, 3% for type A, and 0% for type E. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type B, followed by 35% for type C, 6% for type D, 3% for type A and 0% for type E. 7. The majority of implants were those of 10-14mm in length (80%) and regular diameter in width (79%). The results provided us with basic data on patient type, implant distribution, bone condition, etc. We wish that our results coupled with other research data helps assist in the further study for better implant success/survival rates, etc.
Keywords
Implant; Patient type; Implant distribution; Cause of tooth loss; Bone quality; Bone quantity.;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Pietrokovski J., Massier M. : Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J. Prosthet. Dent., 17: 21-27, 1967   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Watson M.T. : Implant dentistry: A 10-year retrospective report. Dental Products Report, 2632, Dec. 1996
3 Branernark P.I., Breine U., Adel R., Hansson B.O., Lindstrom J. & Olsson A. : Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prosthesis, I. Experimental studies. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery., 3: 81-100, 1969   DOI   PUBMED
4 Buser D., Mericske-stem R : Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Clin, Oral. Implants. Res., 8: 161-172, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Jaffin R.A., Berman C.L. : The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone : A 5-year analysis, J. Periodontol., 62(1): 2-4, 1991   DOI   PUBMED
6 Pietrokovski J., Sorin S., Hirschfeld Z, : The residual ridge in partially edentulous patients. J. Prosthet. Dent., 36(2) 150-157, 1976   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Henry P.H., Laney W.R., Jemt T. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement, a prospective 5 years multicenter study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants., 11: 450-455, 1996   PUBMED
8 Pietrokovski, J. : The bony residual ridge in man. J. Prosthet, Dent., 34: 456-462, 1975   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Anjardn R. : Mayan dental wonders. Oral Implant., 9: 423, 1981
10 Lindh T., Gunne J., Tillberg A., Molin M. : A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin, Oral. Implants. Res,, 9:80-90, 1998   DOI   ScienceOn
11 U.S. department of Health and Human Services: Oral health of U,S. adults, national findings., NIH. PubI, No. (87): 28-68, 1987
12 통계청. : 1999년 생명표. 2001년 8월
13 Schnitman et al : Ten-year results for Branemark implants immediately loaded with fixed prosthesis implant placement. Int, J. Oral. Maxillofac, Implants., 12: 495-503, 1997
14 Minsk L., Polson A., Weisgold A. : Outcome failures of endosseous implant from a clinical training center. Compendium., 17(9): 848-859, 1996
15 Lekholm U, : Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: A 10 year prospective multicenter study. Int. J. Oral, Maxillofac. Implants., 14: 639-645, 1999
16 Ericsson I., Nilson H., Lindh T., Nilner K., Randow K. : Immediate functional loading of Branemark single tooth implants. An 18 months' clinical pilot follow-up study, Clin, Oral. Implants. Res" 11: 26-33, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Lekholm U., Zarb G. : Patient selection and preparation. In Branemark P.I., editor: Tissue integrated prostheses : Osseointegration in clinical dentistry, Chicago, Quintensence., 199-209, 1985
18 Friberd B., Jemt T., Lekholm U. : Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants. A study from stage 1 surgery to the connections of complete prostheses. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants,, 6: 132-146, 1991
19 Atwood D.A. : Postextraction changes in the adult mandible as illustrated by microradiographs of midsagital sections and serial cephalometric roentgenograms. J. Prosthet, Dent., 13: 810-824, 1963   DOI
20 Waerhaug J. : Periodontology and partial prosthesis. Int. Dent. J., 18(1): 101-107, 1968   PUBMED
21 한창식, 허남기, 김연미 최신 치과임플란트., 지성출판사. 2001
22 Carlsson G., Persson G. : Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing dentures : A longitudinal clinical and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years, Odont, Revy, 18: 27-54, 1967
23 Carr A., Laney W.R. : Maximum occlusal force levels in patients with osseointegrated oral implant prosthesis and patient with complete dentures. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants., 2: 101-110, 1987
24 Meskin L.H., Brown L.J, : Prevalence and patterns of tooth loss in the U.S. employed adult and senior populations. J. Dent. Educ, 52: 686-691, 1988
25 Marcus S.E., Drury J.F., Brown L.S. : Tooth retention and tooth loss in the permanent dentition of adults: United States, 1988-1991. J. Dent. Res., 75: 684-695, Feb 1996   DOI   PUBMED
26 Tallgren A. : The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers. A mixed longitudinal study covering 25 years. J. Prosthet. Dent., 27: 120-132, 1972   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
27 Wetherell J., Smales R. : Partial dentures failure: A long-term clinical survey. J. Dent. Res., 8: 333-340, 1980   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Bruno C., Hugo D., Bruyn, : Comparison of Branernark fixture integration and short-term survival using one-stage or two-stage surgery in completely and partially edentulous mandibles Clin. Oral. Implants. Res., 9: 131-175, 1998   DOI