• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2012

Purpose: This study was to compare the cumulative survival rate (CSR) of Br${\aa}$nemark machined surface implants and TiUnite$^{TM}$ imlants and to analyze association between risk factors and the CSR of the implants. Materials and methods: A retrospective study design was used to collect long-term follow-up clinical data from dental records of 156 patients treated with 541 Br${\aa}$nemark machined and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implants at Korea University Guro hospital in South Korea from 1993 through 2008. Machined implant and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant were compared by CSR. Exposure variables such as gender, systemic disease, location, implant length, diameter, prosthesis type, opposing occlusion type, date of implant placement, type of edentulous space, abutment type, existence of splinting with natural teeth, and existence of cantilever were collected. Life table analysis was undertaken to examine the CSR. Cox regression method was conducted to assess the association between potential risk factors and overall CSR (${\alpha}$=.05). Results: Patient ages ranged from 16 to 75 years old (mean age, 51 years old). Implants were more frequently placed in men than women (94 men versus 63 women). Since 1993, 264 Br${\aa}$nemark machined implants were inserted in 79 patients and since 2001, 277 TiUnite$^{TM}$ implants were inserted in 77 patients. A total survival rate of 86.07% was observed in Br${\aa}$nemark and Nobel Biocare TiUnite$^{TM}$ during 15 years. A survival rate of machined implant during 15 years was 82.89% and that of TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant during 5 years was 98.74%. The implant CSR revealed lower rates association with several risk factors such as, systemic disease, other accompanied surgery, implant location, and Kennedy classification. Conclusion: Clinical performance of Br${\aa}$nemark machined and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant demonstrated a high level of predictability. In this study, TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant was more successful than machined implant. The implant CSR was associated with several risk factors.