• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.59 no.11
• /
• pp.456-459
• /
• 2016

Triple-A syndrome, also known as Allgrove syndrome, is a rare autosomal recessive disorder. The 3 features of this syndrome are achalasia, adrenal insufficiency, and alacrima. Achalasia could be the first manifestation of the triple-A syndrome; however, its etiology is unclear. Alacrima is generally asymptomatic but can be detected by obtaining patient history. Although adrenal insufficiency could have manifestations such as asthenia, it might be wrongly diagnosed as muscle fatigue. Vitamin D and calcium supplements are usually prescribed for the prevention of osteoporosis. Neurologic manifestations could be present in adults. In some individuals with this disorder, genetic examination indicates mutations in both alleles of the AAAS gene, which encodes a special 546-amino-acid protein designated ALADIN, and in chromosome 12q13. The genetic cause of the triple A syndrome in some patients who do not have an identified mutation is unknown. While very few such cases have been reported till date, one such case was presented to us as an edentulous child.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.55 no.4
• /
• pp.451-457
• /
• 2017

Bell's palsy is an acute-onset unilateral peripheral facial neuropathy. For patients with sequelae of facial paresis, the successful rehabilitation of fully edentulous arches is challenging. This case report described the treatment procedures and clinical considerations to fabricate complete dentures of a patient who showed unilateral displacement of mandible, unilateral chewing pattern and parafunctional jaw movement due to sequelae of Bell's palsy. Gothic arch tracing was used to record reproducible centric relation and lingualized occlusion was performed to provide freedom to move between centric relation and the patient's habitual functional area in fabricating satisfactory dentures in terms of function and esthetics.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 1997

The most critical factor in determining which type of implant to be used would be the available bone of the patient. Usually a minimum of 5mm in the bone width and 8mm in the bone height is necessary to ensure primary implant stability and maintain the integrity of bone contact surface. Placement of implant is limited by the several anatomic strutures such as maxillary sinus, floor of the nose, inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle and nasopalatine foramen, etc. When severe resorption of alveolar ridge is encountered, implant placement would be a problematic procedure. A number of techniques to improve the poor anatomic situations have been proposed. This article reports 4 cases of patients using surgical procedures such as blade implant technique, cortical split technique in the anterior maxillary area, sinus lifting and lateral repositioning of inferior alveolar nerve, We treated dental implant candidates with unfavorable alveolar ridge utilizing various surgical techniques, resulted in successful rehabilitation of edentulous ridge.

• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.24-40
• /
• 2018

Often there are edentulous patients with severe vertical resorption of the alveolar ridge so that implant placement in the mandibular posterior is impossible. In this case, implants can be placed in the anterior portion of the mandible and the patient can be treated with an implant assisted overdenture, but the inherent discomfort of the removable prosthesis can not be overcome. However, if implants are appropriately placed between the mental foramen of both sides and a fixed hybrid prosthesis is fabricated to the patient, the patient will be satisfied without the inconvenience of the removable prosthesis. However, the treatment plan should be well designed to prevent disadvantages and expected complications of fixed hybrid prosthesis. Based on my clinical experience, I will explain treatment plan and protocol in detail.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• 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
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.819-836
• /
• 2004

Nowdays, the awareness of implant treatment has grown rapidly among dentists and patients alike in Korea, as it becomes a widely accepted treatment. The reason is that unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. So, It is needed understanding about the type, distribution of implant patient. The following results on patient type and implant distribution were compiled from 4433 implant cases of 1596 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Y University Hospital during 1992 to 2004. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 40, 50s accounting for 52.5% of patients and 57.5% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 54.9% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(27.6%), Mx anterior area(11.9%) and Mn anterior area(5.6%). 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 97.5% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 2.5%. 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. Also, older people are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease rather than dental caries. 5. In the distribution of bone quality for maxillae, type III was most, followed by type II, r type IV and r type I. As for mandible, type II was most, followed by type III, type IV and for type I. 6. In the distribution of bone quantity for maxillae, type C was most, followed by type B, type D, type A, and for type E. As for mandible, type B was 52% most, followed by type C, type D, type A and type E. 7. The majority of implants were those of 1O-14mm in length (85.2%) and regular diameter in width (64%). 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.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.539-554
• /
• 2002

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.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.235-248
• /
• 1994

There were many studies that distribute the partial edentulous states and examine the removable partial denture designs in the planning of removable partial denture treatment. This study was performed in the point of removable partial denture prescription to evaluate partial edentulism and its removable partial denture designs. The data was collected from the dental laboratory of each three dental colleges in Seoul and from two dental laboratories only for removable partial dentures as a prescription form. A total of 1411 cases with prescription form collected from dental laboratories were distributed for this study, then 788 cases were selected for this study. The case selection was done according to the contents of prescription form. The selected cases were divided into maxillary arch and mandibular and classified in terms of types of major connector and direct retainer, unbroken anterior teeth, Kennedy classification, the number of remaining teeth, and distribution of age and sex. The analyzed results were as follows : 1. The Kennedy classification I showed highest frequency both in maxilla and mandible. 2. The arch distribution of removable partial denture was 50.08% for maxilla and 49.92% for mandible. 3. The highest frequency in the distribution of direct retainer was the RPA clasp design. 4. The frequency of unbroken anterior 6 was 73.36% for maxilla and 82.30% for mandible. 5. The design of broad palatal strap and lingual bar revealed the highest prevalence in the major connector construction. 6. The mean number of remaining teeth per arch was 8.25 for maxilla and 8.37 for mandible. 7. The mean age of the patients supplied with removable partial denture was 52.25 years for men, 51.68 years for women, 52.11 years for maxilla, and 51.76 years for mandible and women showed more prevalence.

• Imaging Science in Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.133-138
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the morphologic features of posterior edentulous mandible for Korean patients using cross-sectional CT images. Materials and Methods: Computed tomographic cross-sectional views taken in 2004 and 2005 at Seoul National University Dental Hospital were analyzed by an oral and maxillofacial radiologist. Four indices were measured to meet the purpose of this study: 1) the horizontal distance between the alveolar crest and mandibular canal (Type), 2) the angle of the mandibular long axis (Angle), 3) the bucco-lingual location of mandibular canal, and 4) the depth of the submandibular fossa. The averages and standard deviations of the measurements were compared according to the location (the first and second molar area) and sex of the patients. Results: Statistically significant difference was found in Type, Angle, and submandibular fossa depth between the first and second molar area (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between men and women in any of the measured indices. Most of the mandibular canals were located in lingual side of posterior mandible. Conclusion: More care should be taken when an implant is installed on the mandibular second molar area.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical findings and patient satisfaction on implant overdenture designed with Locator implant attachment or Locator bar attachment in mandibular edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, probing depth, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, plaque, calculus, complications, and satisfaction were evaluated on sixteen patients who were treated with mandibular overdenture and have used it for at least 1 year (Locator implant attachment: n=8, Locator bar attachment: n=8). RESULTS. Marginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index of the Locator bar attachment group were significantly lower than the Locator implant attachment group (P<.05). There was no significant difference on bleeding, peri-implant inflammation, and patient satisfaction between the two denture types (P>.05). The replacement of the attachment components was the most common complication in both groups. Although there was no correlation between marginal bone loss and plaque index, a significant correlation was found between marginal bone loss and probing depth. CONCLUSION. The Locator bar attachment group indicates lesser marginal bone loss and need for maintenance, as compared with the Locator implant attachment group. This may be due to the splinting effect among implants rather than the types of Locator attachment.