• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.165-180
• /
• 2007

Dental Implants have been proved to be successful prosthetic modality in edentulous patients for 10 years. However, there are few reports on the survival of implant according to location in molar regions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the $4{\sim}5$ years' cumulative survival rate and the cause of failure of dental implants in different locations for maxillary and mandibular molars. Among the implants placed in molar regions in Gwangju Mir Dental Hospital from Jan. 2001 to Jun. 2002, 473 implants from 166 patients(age range; $26{\sim}75$) were followed and evaluated retrospectively for the causes of failure. We included 417 implants in 126 periodontally compromised patients, 56 implants in 40 periodontal healthy patients, and 205 maxillary and 268 mandibular molar implants. Implant survival rates by various subject factors, surgical factors, fixture factors, and prosthetic factors at each location were compared using Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival analysis was done for follow-up(FU) periods. The overall failure rate at 5 years was 1O.2%(subject level) and 5.5%(implant level). The overall survival rates of implants during the FU periods were 94.5% with 91.3% in maxillary first molar, 91.1% in maxillary second molar, 99.2% in mandibular first molar and 94,8% in mandibular second molar regions. The survival rates differed significantly between both jaws and among different implant locations(p<0.05), whereas the survival rates of functionally loaded implants were similar in different locations. The survival rates were not different according to gender, age, previous periodontal status, surgery stage, bone graft type, or the prosthetic type. The overall survival rate was low in dental implant of too wide diameter(${\geq}5.75$ mm) and the survival rate was significantly lower for wider implant diameter(p

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.34-40
• /
• 2014

There are several treatment options for rehabilitation of partial edentulism including the use of conventional or implant-retained fixed prostheses. However, such prosthetic options cannot always be possible because of compromised general and oral health (i.e. loss of supporting tissues, medical reasons, extensive surgical protocol and osseointegration failure of dental implant) as well as the affordability of patients. In some cases, removable partial denture provides easier access for oral hygiene procedures and the ability to correct discrepancies in dental arch relationships than implant fixed prosthesis. Recently, Implant Supported Removable Partial Denture (ISRPD) where to place dental implant in strategic position has been suggested to improve the limitation and shortcomings of conventional RPD. ISPRD can overcome mechanical limition of conventional RPD by placing implant in a favorable position and can be cost-effective, prosthetic solution for partially edentulous patients who are not immediate candidates for extensive, fixed implant supported restorations. Incorporation of dental implants to improve the RPD support and retention and to enhance patient acceptance should be considered when treatment planning for RPD. In this case, 59 years old male patient who received dental treatment of implant fixed prosthesis on both side of the upper jaw and implant overdenture on lower jaw showed implant abutment screw fracture on #15i and osseointegration failure on multiple number of implants. After removing failed implants, we planned ISRPD using #15i,24i,25i,26i and #23 natural tooth for RPD abutment. We fabricated #23 surveyed crown,#24i=25i=26i surveyed bridge and #15i gold coping for support,retention and stability for RPD. Periodic follow up check for 2years has been performed since the ISRPD delivery to the patient. No sign of screw loosening, fracture or bone resorption around abutment implants were detected.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.134-141
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate ceramic pressed zirconia prostheses and monolithic zirconia prostheses and to investigate the complications after two years of follow-up in posterior edentulous site. Materials and methods: A total 17 patients (male: 12, female: 5) were treated with 60 posterior fixed implant-supported prostheses (LP. lithium disilicate ceramic pressed zirconia prostheses: n = 30, MZ. monolithic zirconia prostheses: n = 30). After 24-month, clinical examination of Implant survival rate, marginal bone resorption, probing depth, plaque index, bleeding index, calculus and complications were evaluated. Results: There were no failed implants and all implants were normal in function without mobility. Marginal bone resorption was lower in LP group than MZ group at 12-month (P < .05), and 12-month probing depth and calculus deposit in LP group were significantly higher than MZ group (P < .05). Most common complications in MZ were marginal bone resorptions more than 1.5.mm and 2 chipping occurred in LP group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, lithium disilicate ceramic pressed zirconia is considered as a predictable treatment option as much as monolithic zirconia in posterior fixed implant-supported prostheses.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.341-349
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the $Osstem^{(R)}$ implants (US II/SS II implants) through the retrospective study for the clinical success rate during the installation of the $Osstem^{(R)}$ implants (US II/SS II implants) by using of the procedures of maxillary sinus floor elevation. Materials and methods: The current study was researched in the 6 medical institutions: Chonnam National University, Chosun University, Pusan DaeDong Hospital, Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, Ap-Seon Clinic, and All Clinic. Based on the total number of 116 patients whose treatment was the installation of the US II/SS II implants with the procedures of the maxillary sinus floor elevation, they were conferred on the dental records of the patients under the joint consultation of the 6 medical institutions. On the dental recording charts, there were included in as the following; the name of the institutions, gender, age, with or without smoking or drinking, with or without the generalized diseases, the height of the alveolar bone on the operational sites, elapsed edentulous state period, the state of the opposed or adjacent teeth, the methods of the maxillary sinus floor elevation, secondary time period for surgery, the lengths, types, and diameters of implants, with or without bone transplantation or the types of bone, postoperative current bone height, current adjacent soft tissue state of the implants, with or without the success of the installations of the implants. We have done our survey with the clinical and radiolographical examinations and dental questionaries. The success and survival rate of the implants was evaluated. Results 1. Total number of the patients with the installation of the US II implants were 62. The 252 numbers of US II implants were installed on the 89 maxillary sinuses. The patient's mean age was 54.1 years old and there were 36 men and 27 women. 2. Total number of patients with the installation of SS II implant were 57. The 165 numbers of SS II implants were planted on the 80 maxillary sinuses. Their mean age was 48.7 years old and there were 37 men and 20 women. 3. The follow-up period was 30.7 months(21-49 mon) on average. The vertical bone loss of installed implants after the procedures of the maxillary sinus elevation was 1.1 mm on average in SS II and 1.3 mm on average in US II. There existed no statistical significance on each group. The mean enlarged bone height after the maxillary sinus floor elevation was 8.2 mm. 4. For the procedures of the maxillary sinus elevation, the Lateral approach technique occupied 87.1%, which was the most used one. In addition, the most frequently used transplanted bone was autogenous bone only which was 72.7% during the maxillary sinus floor elevation. 5. The complication of maxillary sinus floor elevation were perforation of sinus membrane, disesthesia on doner site, exposure of cover screw and exposure of maxillar bone. 6. The survival rate of US II and SS II after maxillary sinus floor elevation was 99.2% and 95.8%, respectively. And the success rate of US II and SS II after maxillary sinus floor elevation was 97.6% and 89.7%, respectively. Conclusion : On the evaluation of the analysis of our study, both US II and SS II implants showed the excellent clinical results by use of the procedures of maxillary sinus floor elevation.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.50 no.12
• /
• pp.743-754
• /
• 2012

urpose : The purpose of this study was to evaluate the US II plus/GS II Osstem$^{(R)}$ implants through the study for the clinical success rate during the installation of the Osstem¢Á implants after bone graft. Materials and Methods : This study was researched in the 4 medical institutions: Chonnam National University, Chosun University, Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, and FM dental clinic from May, 2002 to September, 2009. Based on the total number of 60 patients whose treatment was the installation of the US II plus/GS II Osstem¢Á implants after bone graft, we evaluated success rate of implants. We analysis the distribution of patient's age and gender, edentulous area, bone type, fixture length and diameter, installation and loading time, donor site, bone graft material and method, antagonistic teeth, and survival and success rate. From these analyses we got the following results. Results : 1. In this study, the total number of patients who have been installed with US II plus implant was 27, and total of 52 implants were installed. The average age was 38.9, with 16 male, and 11 female patients. 2. The total number of patients who have been installed with GS II implant was 33, and total of 54 implants were installed. The average age was 49.7, with 24 male, and 9 female patients. 3. As for bone graft method, either autogenous bone or a mix of autogenous and heterogenous bone was used(88.4%) for US II plus. Chin, iliac, and Maxillary tuberosity were the donor sites for autogenous bone graft, and onlay method of bone graft was performed. 4. Allogenic bone or a mix of autogenous and heterogenous bone was used(77.8%) for GS II. Chin, ramus, and tibia were the donor sites for autogenous bone graft, and GBR method of bone graft was performed. 5. The duration from the installation of implants to setting of final prosthesis was average of 16 months and 10 months for US II plus and GS II respectively. Also, the final follow up period was average of 31 months and 28 months respectively. During this period, one GS II implant was removed from 1 patient due to failure of early osteointegration. 6. The survival rates were 100% and 98.1%, and success rates were 94.2% and 94.4% for US II plus and GS II implant respectively. Conclusion : On the evaluation of our clinical study, both US II plus and GS II Osstem¢Á implants showed the excellent clinical results after bone graft.