• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.27 no.6
• /
• pp.575-580
• /
• 2005

Transitional implants were developed to support provisional restorations and to allow for load-free osseointegration of conventional implants while a patient was provided with immediate esthetics and function and are usually placed simultaneously at the time of definitive implant placement. Transitional implants are placed in a non-submerged fashion in a single-stage surgery and are designed to be immediately loaded. They generally are made of commercially pure titanium or titanium alloy and are designed as 1-piece implants composed of root and crown replacement segments. Transitional implants can be used in a wide range of indications, such as basic use as temporary implant, to support and protect the primary implants during the healing phase, single crown in the edentulous anterior region of mandibular, anchorage for orthodontic treatment, support a surgical and radiographic template, and primary implant to extremely atrophied alveolar crests of the mandible and maxilla. This article describes the clinical use of transitional implants to support the provisional complete denture and single crown in the restricted edenturous central incisor region of mandible.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.351-359
• /
• 2008

It is difficult to provide prosthodontic treatment to fully edentulous patients with severe alveolar bone resorption, because this makes patents hard to endure functional load, and to adapt to the dentures, which result in emotional stress to patients. Implant supported overdenture can be chosen to solve these problems. Among several types of them, the implant retained and tissue supported overdenture, is available to the patients of low masticatory force with the reduced cost. Attachments also can be used for increasing retention and esthetics in dentures. Especially, $Locator^{(R)}$ system needs a small vertical interarch space for restoration and is able to compensate the difference of angle between fixtures. In this study, we restored maxilla with conventional complete denture, and mandible with implant and tissue supported overdenture and $Locator^{(R)}$ system.

• Implantology
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.236-241
• /
• 2018

This case report is to report an extraordinary case of the spontaneous discharge of a dental implant. A 45-year-old woman was referred to our department complaining of symptoms of acute Maxillary sinusitis. She underwent a computed tomography scan that revealed a dental implant dislocated in the maxillary sinus. A preoperative medical treatment [Amoxicillin - Clavulanate (375 mg) and Streptokinase-Streptodornase (12500IU)] three times a day for two weeks was administered in order to prepare her for surgery. Unexpectedly, she reported that she had discharged the implant from mouth in the early morning. Mucociliary clearance in combination with a local osteolytic inflammatory process and mucolytics therapy are the likely causes of this unusual discharge.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.1
• /
• pp.37-41
• /
• 2019

Dental implants are an effective and predictable treatment for restoration of missing teeth. However, as the use of implants increases, complications are also increasing. The mechanical complications are not only highly frequent, but also increasing as life span of an implant increases, thus, solutions should be prepared. In this report, we will present a case dealing with abutment fracture and abutment screw fracture which are the most common mechanical complication of the implant, focusing on preserving and reusing existing components by reconstructing only the damaged parts.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.73-80
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this case study series was to introduce successful implant cases that used the palatal bone in patients with severe maxillary alveolar bone atrophy or defects. Case Presentation: In this case series study, a total of four patients underwent implant placement in the palatal bone of the maxilla. A total of 6 implants were installed using the palatine bone. The patients' ages ranged from 40 to 73 years with an average age of 63.5 years. The patients had maxillary sinus-related diseases, such as maxillary sinusitis, oroantral fistula, and dentigerous cysts, prior to implantation. To achieve initial stability, the implants were placed on the palatal side, and buccally tilted. The average postoperative recovery period was 8 months. No postoperative complications occurred in any of the cases, and the approach was used without reported issues. Conclusion: Implant treatment by securing the initial fixation in the palatal bone is a good alternative when an implant must be installed in a patient who requires extensive and invasive bone graft.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.375-383
• /
• 2018

Clinicians are faced with many difficulties when planning prosthodontic restorations with implants in a complete edentulous patient. When planning fixed implant prosthetics, it is often necessary to have additional surgery due to highly reduced alveolar bone, as well as high treatment costs and long-term treatment durations can be required. In addition, lack of interocclusal space can be a problem when planning implant supported overdentures. In this study, we planned to place a small number of implants on the anterior maxilla and used them as the abutments for distal-extension removable partial dentures on the posterior side in a maxillary fully edentulous patient. This would reduce the possibility of additional invasive operations such as alveolar bone graft, shorten the treatment time, and be relatively easy for elderly patients to burden. In this case, the patient was provided with a distal-extension removable partial denture and anterior implant fixed prostheses, which was similar to the previous one, and showed good adaptation, and chewing efficiency and esthetics was recovered.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.27.1-27.9
• /
• 2019

Background: Implants are becoming the first choice of rehabilitation for tooth loss. Even though they have a high success rate, failures still occur for many reasons. The objective of this study is to analyze the reasons for recurring failure at the same site and the results of re-implantation. Methods: Thirteen patients (11 males and 2 females, mean age 60 ± 9.9 years) who experienced implant surgery failure at the same site (same tooth extraction area) two or more times in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, between 2004 and 2017 were selected. The medical records on a type, sites, diameter, and length of implants; time and estimated cause of failure; and radiographs were reviewed. Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively, and the current statuses were evaluated. Results: A total of 14 implants experienced failure in the same site more than two times. Twelve implants were placed in the maxilla, while 2 implants were placed in the mandible. The maxillary molar area was the most common site of failure (57.1%), followed by the mandibular molar, anterior maxilla, and premolar areas (14.3% each). The first failure occurred most commonly after prosthetic treatment (35.7%) with an average period of failure of 3.8 months after loading. Ten cases were treated as immediate re-implantation, while the other 4 were delayed reimplantation after an average of 3.9 months. The second failure occurred most commonly after prosthetic treatment (42.9%), with an average of 31 months after loading; during the healing period (42.9%); and during the ongoing prosthetic period (14.3%). In 3 cases (21.4%), the treatment plan was altered to an implant bridge, while the other 11 cases underwent another implant placement procedure (78.6%). Finally, a total of 9 implants (64.3%) survived, with an average functioning period of 60 months. Conclusions: Implants can fail repeatedly at the same site due to overloading, infection, and other unspecified reasons. The age and sex of the patient and the location of implant placement seem to be associated with recurring failure. Type of implant, bone augmentation, and bone materials used are less relevant.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.825-838
• /
• 2007

Endosseous implants are used in the treatment of various types of tooth loss, and numerous long-term studies have demonstrated the excellent reliability of this method of treatment. However, the increase of implant failure are associated with inadequate quality and/or height of bone. At the end of the 1980s, Wide(>3.75mm) implants were initially used for managing these difficult bone situations. The recommended indications for its use included poor bone quality, inadequate bone height. immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets, and immediate replacement of failed implants. At the 2000s, wider implants(6.0mm and 6.5mm) were used in a few studies. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in recent years, there is still a controversy on this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the survival rate of wide implants($6.0{\sim}8.0mm$) in molar regions, evaluating the clinical outcome. In this study, 1135 RBM surfaced wide implants($Rescue^{TM}$, MEGAZEN Co., Korea/595 maxillary, 540 mandibular) were placed in 650 patients(403 male, 247 female/age mean: $51.2{\pm}11.1$ years, range 20 to 83 years). Of the total, 68.3% were used to treat fully or partially edentulous situations, including single-tooth losses and 31.7% were placed immediately after teeth extraction or removal of failed implants, of which all were in the molar regions. Implant diameter and length ranged from 6.0 to 8.0mm and from 5.0 to 10.0mm respectively. The implants were followed for up to 42 months (mean: $14.6{\pm}9.5$ months). Of 1135 placed implants, 58 implants were lost. Among them, 53 implants were lost within 12 months after implant placement. The survival rate was 93.6% in the maxilla and 96.3% in the mandible, yielding an overall survival rate of 94.9%, for up to 42 months. As the result of Cox regression model, prosthetic type, sinus graft, and patient gender have an statistical significance on the implant survival rate in this study. This study suggests that the use of wide implants($6.0{\sim}8.0mm$) would provide a predictable treatment alternative in posterior areas.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.335-341
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Chemically strong-acids (HF and $HCl/H_2SO_4$) dual etching implant surfaces have higher strengths of osseointegration than machined implant surfaces. However, the dual acid treatment deteriorates the physical properties of the titanium by weakening the fatigue resistance of the implant and causing microcracks. The removal torque comparison between the dual-acid etched (hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, HS) and single-acid etched implants (hydrochloric acid, H) could reveal the efficiency of implant surface acid treatment. Materials and methods: Nine $3.75{\times}4mm$ dual-acid etched SLA implants and nine single-acid etched SLA implants were inserted into New Zealand rabbit tibias. After 10 days, removal torque, roughness, and wetting angle were measured. Results: Mean removal torque values were as follows: Mean removal torque were 9.94 Ncm for HS group and 9.96 Ncm for H group (P=.995). Mean surface roughness value were $0.93{\mu}m$ for HS group and $0.84{\mu}m$ for H group (P=.170). Root mean square roughness (RSq) values were $1.21{\mu}m$ for HS group and $1.08{\mu}m$ for H group (P=.294), and mean wetting angle values were $99^{\circ}$ for HS group and $98^{\circ}$ for H group (P=.829). Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the removal torques, roughness, or wetting angles of the two groups. Conclusion: In this experiment, we found no significant difference in removal torque, roughness, or wetting angle between dual-acid etched and single-acid etched implants.

• 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