• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• 제37권3호
• /
• pp.523-534
• /
• 2007

This study is an analysis of types of patients and distribution of implant site and survival rate of $Xive^{(R)}$ implant. The following results on patient type, implant distribution and survival rate were compiled from 324 implant cases of 140 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Yonsei University Hospital and G dental clinic between February 2003 and April 2006. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 30, 40, 50s accounting for 80% of patients and accounted for 82% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn, posterior area. accounted for 57% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(29%), Mx, anterior area(8%) and Mn, anterior area(6%). 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 96% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 4%. 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental canes, trauma and congenital missing. 5, The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 54,2% for type III, followed by 30.8% for type II, 15% for type IV and 0% for type I. As for mandible, the distribution was 63% for type II, followed by 34% for type III, 2,5% for type I and 0,5% for type IV. 6. The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 55% for type C, followed by 35% for type B, 8% for type D and 2% for type A. As for mandible, the distribution was 60% for type B, followed by 32% for type C, 7% for type A and 0% for type D. 7. The majority of implants were those of 9.5-13 mm in length(95%) and regular diameter in width(82%). 8. The total survival rate was 98%. The survival rate was 97% in the maxillae region and 99% in the mandible region. 9. The survival rate in type I was 83%, in type II was 99%, in type III was 97% and in type IV was 100%. As for the bone quantity, the survival rate in type A and D(100%) was most, followed by type B(99%) and type C(96%). The results showed that $Xive^{(R)}$ implant could be used satisfactorily compare for the other implant system. But we most to approach carefully in certain extreme condition especially with poor bone quality and quantity.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• 제37권4호
• /
• pp.805-824
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Developments in micro/macrostructures of implants and surgical techniques brought out stable outcomes of implant dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distributions of implant patients, the types of implanted sites, and the success or survival rates of various implant systems and to analyze the implant placement done at each specificintraoral site and situation. Materials and Methods: The data of dental implantations collected between 1992 and 2006 at the Department of Periodontology in 00000 University Hospital were analyzed. Results: 1. Largest part of the patients were at the age of 40s and 50s in bothgender who lost their teeth mostly by periodontaldiseases and caries at the posterior intraoral sites as major ones. Bone densities of type II(mandible) and III(maxilla) were likely to be seen with quantity of type B. Lengths of the implants between 10 and 15 mm and wide platform took the largest part. 2. Survival rates of $Implantium^{(R)}(98.8%)$, $Xive^{(R)}(100%)$ and ITI $TE^{(R)}(100%)$ were high when $Frialit-2^{(R)}$ showed 82%(poor bone density area) or 87.2%(combined with additional therapy). $IMZ^{(R)}$ had lowest cumulative survival(67.5%) and success rate(49.4%) amongst all. 3. Replacement with 2 wide or 3 regular platforms showed no significant differences in survival rate and marginal bone loss atmandibular posterior area. In single restoration of mandibular second molar, 5-year success rate of machined surface $Br{\aa}nemark^{(R)}(70.37%)$ was lower than that of rough surface $ITI^{(R)}$ SLA(100%). 4. Replacement of single tooth in anterior area showed high survival rate of 94.5%. 5. The success rates of $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite and ITI SLA at posterior maxilla with poor bone density both showed stable outcomes. 6. 10-year cumulative survival rate of implants with maxillary sinus augmentation by lateral window approach appeared to be 96.60%. Low survival rate(75%) was shown when there were more than two complications combined. Height of grafted bone remained stable above the implant apex. Conclusions : Rough surfaced implants showed stable outcomes in most of the situation including poor bone density and additional therapy combined.

• 대한치주과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한치주과학회 2007년도 제47회 종합학술대회 연제초록
• /
• pp.173-174
• /
• 2007