• 치위생과학회지
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.106-112
• /
• 2015

본 연구는 2013년 6월 10일부터 8월 15일까지 경남 일부지역 치과의원에 내원한 재진환자 236명을 대상으로 설문조사하였다. 의료서비스 질 만족도와 재이용 의사에 미치는 영향 요인을 조사하여 치과 의료서비스 공급자에게 병원서비스 정책에 필요한 전략적인 시사점을 제시하고, 치과 의료서비스 소비자에게 보다 나은 치과 의료서비스를 제공하여 재이용 의사에 긍정적인 영향을 나타내고자 한다. 치과를 내원하게 되는 동기는 친구나 가족의 소개로 방문했다가 가장 높게 나타났고, 거리의 접근성, 눈에 잘 띄어서, 치과 병 의원의 인지도 순으로 나타났다. 서비스 시스템, 친절도, 의료서비스 만족도, re-call 시스템 효율성, 재이용 시 불편해소는 임플란트 치료과정에서 점수가 가장 높게 나타났고, 향후 재이용 의사는 보철 치료과정에서 가장 높게 나타났다. 주요 변인들간의 상관관계는 서비스 시스템은 재이용 시 불편해소(r=0.440, p<0.001)와 친절도는 의료서비스 만족도(r=0.675, p<0.001), 의료서비스 만족도는 향후 재이용 의사(r=0.387, p<0.001), re-call 시스템 효율성은 향후 재이용 의사(r=0.346, p<0.001)와 가장 높은 정적 상관을 가지고 있었다. 의료서비스 질 만족도에 미치는 영향은 친 절도(p<0.001)와 re-call 시스템 효율성(p<0.05)에서 유의한 수준으로 나타났다. 재이용 의사에 미치는 영향은 재이용 시 불편해소(p<0.05), 서비스 시스템(p<0.05), 친절도(p<0.01), re-call 시스템 효율성(p<0.01)에서 유의한 수준으로 나타났다. 이상의 결과를 종합해볼 때 내원환자들의 재이용 의사는 환자들의 인적 네트워크가 주요한 요인으로 작용하는 것으로 나타났고, 의료서비스 질 만족도와 향후 재이용 의사에 미치는 영향 요인은 친절도와 re-call 시스템 효율성에 대한 만족도가 높을수록 의료서비스 질 만족도와 향후 재이용 의사가 높게 나타나는 것으로 확인되었다. 이에 의료서비스 질 만족도 고취와 더불어 재이용 의사를 향상시킬 수 있는 방안을 모색하고 끊임없는 관심과 연구가 이루어져야 할 것으로 생각된다.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• pp.180-186
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in $Osstell^{TM}$, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• 제36권2호
• /
• pp.345-359
• /
• 2006

Loss of maxillary molar teeth leads to rapid loss of crestal bone and inferior expansion of the maxillary sinus floor (secondary pneumatization). Rehabilitation of the site with osseointegrated dental implants often represents a clinical challenge because of the insufficient bone volume resulted from this phenomenon. Boyne & James proposed the classic procedure for maxillary sinus floor elevation entails preparation of a trap door including the Schneiderian membrane in the lateral sinus wall. Summers proposed another non-invasive method using a set of osteotome and the osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) was proposed for implant sites with at least 5-6mm of bone between the alveolar crest and the maxillary sinus floor. The change of grafted material in maxillary sinus is important for implant survival and the evaluation of graft height after maxillary sinus floor elevation is composed of histologic evaluation and radiomorphometric evaluation. The aim of the present study was radiographically evaluate the graft height change after maxillary sinus floor elevation and the influence of the graft material type in height change and the bone remodeling of grafts in sinus. A total of 59 patients (28 in lateral approach and 31 in crestal approach) who underwent maxillary sinus floor elevation composed of lateral approach and crestal approach were radiographically followed for up to about 48 months. Change in sinusgraft height were calculated with respect to implant length (IL) and grafted sinus height(BL). It was evaluated the change of the graft height according to time, the influence of the approach technique (staged approach and simultaneous approach) in lateral approach to change of the graft height, and the influence of the type of graft materials to change of the graft height. Patients were divided into three class based on the height of the grafted sinus floor relative to the implant apex and evaluated the proportion change of that class (Class I, in which the grafted sinus floor was above the implant apex; Class II, in which the implant apex was level with the grafted sinus floor; and Class III, in which the grafted sinus floor was below the implant apex). And it was evaluated th bone remodeling in sinus during 12 months using SGRl(by $Br\ddot{a}gger$ et al). The result was like that; Sinus graft height decreased significantly in both lateral approach and crestal approach in first 12 months (p$MBCP^{TM}$ had minimum height loss. Class III and Class II was increased by time in both lateral and crestal approach and Class I was decreased by time. SGRI was increased statistically significantly from baseline to 3 months and 3 months(p<0.05) to 12 months(p$ICB^{(R)}$ single use, more reduction of sinusgraft height was appeared. Therefore we speculated that the mixture of graft materials is preferable as a reduction of graft materials. Increasing of the SGRI as time goes by explains the stability of implant, but additional histologic or computed tomographic study will be needed for accurate conclusion. From the radiographic evaluation, we come to know that placement of dental implant with sinus floor elevation is an effective procedure in atrophic maxillary reconstruction.