• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.44-52
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single type of narrow-diameter implant (NDI) by investigating its survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). In addition, variables possibly related to implant survival and MBL were investigated to identify potential risk factors. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective study involving 49 patients who had received 3.0-mm diameter TSIII implants (Osstem Implant Co.) at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. In total, 64 implants were included, and dental records and radiographic data were collected from 2017 to 2022. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate the implant survival rate and to investigate the effects of age, sex, jaw, implant location, implant length, the stage of surgery, guided bone regeneration, type of implant placement, and the surgeon's proficiency (resident or professor) on implant survival. The MBL of the NDIs was measured, and the factors influencing MBL were evaluated. Results: The mean observation period was 30.5 months (interquartile range, 26.75-45 months), and 6 out of 64 implants failed. The survival rate of the NDIs was 90.6%, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age was associated with implant failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31, P=0.01). The mean MBL was 0.44±0.75 mm, and no factors showed statistically significant associations with greater MBL. Conclusions: NDIs can be considered a primary alternative when standard-diameter implants are unsuitable. However, further studies are required to confirm their long-term stability.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.239-249
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate survival rates of the implants used in implant assisted removable partial dentures (IARPDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted on 21 patients who were treated with IARPDs. The mean follow-up period for IARPD patients ranged from 12 to 185 months (mean 47.9 months). A total of 58 implants were used for IARPDs in two different modalities: 41 for surveyed crowns and 17 for overdentures. The survival of implants was determined by clinical and radiographic evaluations considering relevant factors: location, RPD classification, opposing dentition, splinting, and implant diameter. RESULTS. The survival rate of total 58 implants was 93.1%: 95.1% for implants supporting surveyed crowns and 88.2% for implants used in overdentures. Considering only the implants supporting surveyed crown, regular diameter implants showed a higher survival rate than narrow or wide diameter implants. CONCLUSION. The survival rate of the implants used in IARPDs was 93.1% (surveyed crown: 95.1%, overdenture: 88.2%).

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.210-215
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the cumulative success rate, the implant survival rate, and the occurrence of biological complications in implants supporting full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations supported by upright and tilted implants. Methods: The clinical records and periapical radiographs of patients who attended follow-up visits were collected, and information was recorded regarding marginal bone loss resorption, the occurrence of peri-implant infectious diseases, and the implant survival rate. Implants were classified as successful or not successful according to two distinct classifications for implant success. Results: A total of 53 maxillary and mandibular restorations including 212 implants were analysed, of which 56 implants were studied over the full five-year follow-up period. After five years, the cumulative success rate was 76.04% according to the Misch classification and 56.34% according to the Albrektsson classification. The cumulative implant survival rate was 100%, although one implant was found to be affected by peri-implantitis at the second follow-up visit. Conclusions: The cumulative success rate of the implants dropped over time, corresponding to the progression of marginal bone resorption. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was very low, and the implant survival rate was not found to be related to the cumulative success rate.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.589-594
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Osseointegration of implants in patients with pneumatized maxillary sinuses is difficult to achieve due to the deficiency of available bone in the posterior maxilla after loss of teeth. Maxillary sinus elevation is a method to overcome this problem. In this study, we evaluated the implant survival rate and the relationship between implant survival in patients with sinus elevation by the lateral approach. Materials and Methods: A total of 48 patients were consecutively treated with sinus elevation by the lateral approach between February 2003 & August 2006 at the dental hospital of Chonbuk National university. A total of 113 implants were placed. The mean healing period was 7.1 months and implants were placed after a mean period of 5.6 months. The mean observation period was 21.8 months. Results: Out of the 113 implants placed, fifteen failed, resulting in a survival rate of 86.7%, 18 cases of sinus membrane perforation were observed out of 65 sinuses treated. 33 implants were placed in a perforated site and 10 failed, representing a 60.7% implant survival. 80 implants were placed in a nonperforated site and 5 failed, representing a 92.6% implant survival. Conclusions: Implant placement with sinus elevation is an acceptable treatment for short term results. Sinus membrane perforation and postoperative complications, however, may have an effect on implant failure.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.108-118
• /
• 2010

Introduction: Maxillary posterior region, compared to the mandible or maxillary anterior region, has a thin cortical bone layer and is largely composed of cancellous bone, and therefore, it is often difficult to achieve primary stability. In such cases, sinus elevation with bone graft is necessary. Materials and Methods: In this research, 121 patients who had implant placement after bone graft were subjected to a follow-up study of 5 years from the moment of the initial surgery. The total survival rate, 5-year cumulative survival rate and the influence of the following factors on implant survival were evaluated; the condition of the patient (sex, age, general body condition), the site of implant placement, diameter and length of the implant, sinus elevation technique, closure method for osseous window, type of prosthesis and opposing teeth. Results: 1. The 5-year cumulative survival rate of total implants was 90.5%, there was no significant difference between sex, age, the site of implant placement, diameter and length of the implant, sinus elevation technique, and the type of opposing teeth. 2. Patients with diabetes mellitus < osteoporosis and smooth-surfaced machined group < hydroxyapatite (HA)-treated group and homogenous demineralized freeze dried allogenic bone (DFDB) bone graft only group had significantly lower survival rate. 3. With less than 4 mm of residual alveolar ridge height, lateral approach without closing the osseous window resulted in a significantly lower survival rate. 4. Restoration of a single implant showed a significantly lower survival rate, compared to cases where the superstructure was joined with several implants in the area. Conclusion: Patients with diabetes or osteoporosis need longer period of time for osseointegration compared to the normal, and the dentists must be prudent when choosing a surface treatment type and the bone graft material. Also, as the vertical dimension of the residual alveolar ridge can influence the result, staged implant placement should be considered when it seems difficult for the implant to gain primary stability from the residual bone with less than 4 mm of vertical dimension. It is recommended to obdurate the bone window and that the superstructure be connected with several impants in the peripheral area.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.413-428
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Given the predictability of dental implant procedure from the studies of successful osseointegration, implant dentistry is often the treatment of choice to replace missing teeth in edentulous patient instead of the fixed prosthesis or removable denture. The $Renova^{(R)}$ dental implant has a RBM(Resorbable Blast Media) surface, internal hex prosthetic connection and a tapered design. At this study gives the analysis of the implant and the short term survival rate of the implant. Material and Methods: In this study, a multilateral analysis was performed on the subjects undergoing placement with $Renova^{(R)}$ implant between August 2006 and February 2008 in Yonsei University dental hospital. 96 implants were placed in 56 patients and they were surveyed for cumulative survival rate. Among them 78 implants in 44 patients were surveyed for the rest analyses. Result: 1. The cumulative survival rate was 96.88% of 96 implants in 56 patients. 2. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.803mm and the marginal bone loss in augmentation group has higher value than the marginal bone loss in non augmentation group. 3. The health scale for the implants were 87% in success group, 9% in satisfactory survival group, 1% in compromised survival group, and 3% in failure group. 4. Two implants placed in poor bone posterior area by 2-stage failed during prosthetic procedure. Conclusion: $Renova^{(R)}$ dental implant showed high cumulative survival rate in installation on partial edentulous ridge and could be a predictable implant system.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.445-452
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was comparison of survival rate of implant as two sinus elevation techniques and when window opening procedure had done it was comparison of survival rate of implant between the procedure of implantation after 6 month of sinus elevation to allow healing period and that of implantation with sinus elevation simultaneously. Material and Methods: All 79 of patients treated at DanKook University Dental Hospital Dept. of Periodontics for 164 implantation of maxillary posterior edentulous area with sinus elevation. Sinus elevation technique was divided of the technique : Osteotome technique and window opening technique. Result: 14 implants among 96 implants was failed implants of using osteotome for sinus elevation whereas one implant of 68 implants was failed of using window opening technique. Conclusion: Window opening technique had higher survival rate than osteotome technique. In case of window opening, there was no significant difference of immediate implantation and delayed implantation.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.691-704
• /
• 2007

Between 1997 May and 2007 May, One hundred and seventeen patients were treated. There were 129 cases of sinus elevation using a lateral window opening procedure and 258 implants placed simultaneously or delayed. The cumulative survival rate of the implants calculated. The implants were evaluated according to surgical site, quality and quantity of bone, graft material, membrane used, the length and diameter of the implant and complications. 1. The 10-year cumulative survival rate of the implants by sinus augmentation using lateral window approach was 96.90%. 2. There was no difference in the survival rate between the implant placed simultaneously with sinus elevation (one stage) and the procedure performed in the delayed procedure (two stage). 3. There was no difference in the survival rate according to the type and amount of graft materials. 4. There was no difference in the survival rate according to the implant site, bone quality and quantity. 5. There was no difference in the survival rate when the $CollaTape^{(R)}$ or Gore-Tex was placed in the window of the lateral wall. 6. There was no difference in the survival rate of the implant length and diameter. 7. The survival rate was as low as 75.00% when there were more than two complications. Implant placement with sinus augmentation using the lateral window approach is a predictable treatment method. Although the vertical height of residual ridge is insufficient and the quality of bone is poor, the normal survival rate of the implants would be expected if an appropriate graft material and membrane is used with greater effort to prevent complications.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.204-209
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. The aim of this systematic review is to address treatment outcomes of Mandibular implant overdentures relative to implant survival rate, maintenance and complications, and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A systematic literature search was conducted by a PubMed search strategy and hand-searching of relevant journals from included studies. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) and comparative clinical trial studies on mandibular implant overdentures until August, 2010 were selected. Eleven studies from 1098 studies were finally selected and data were analyzed relative to number of implants. RESULTS. Six studies presented the data of the implant survival rate which ranged from 95% to 100% for 2 and 4 implant group and from 81.8% to 96.1% for 1 and 2 implant group. One study, which statistically compared implant survival rate showed no significant differences relative to the number of implants. The most common type of prosthetic maintenance and complications were replacement or reattaching of loose clips for 2 and 4 implant group, and denture repair due to the fracture around an implant for 1 and 2 implant groups. Most studies showed no significant differences in the rate of prosthetic maintenance and complication, and patient satisfaction regardless the number of implants. CONCLUSION. The implant survival rate of mandibular overdentures is high regardless of the number of implants. Denture maintenance is likely not inflenced substantially by the number of implants and patient satisfaction is typically high again regardless os the number of implants.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.3 no.4
• /
• pp.204-215
• /
• 2011

PURPOSE. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze the relationship between local factors and survival rate of dental implant which had been installed and restored in Seoul Veterans Hospital dental center for past 10 years. And when the relationship is found out, it could be helpful to predict the prognosis of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective study of patients receiving root-shaped screw-type dental implants placed from January 2000 to December 2009 was conducted. 6385 implants were placed in 3755 patients. The following data were collected from the dental records and radiographs: patient's age, gender, implant type and surface, length, diameter, location of implant placement, bone quality, prosthesis type. The correlations between these data and survival rate were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed with the use of Kaplan-Meier analysis, Chi-square test and odds ratio. RESULTS. In all, 6385 implants were placed in 3755 patients (3120 male, 635 female; mean age $65{\pm}10.58$ years). 108 implants failed and the cumulative survival rate was 96.33%. There were significant differences in age, implant type and surface, length, location and prosthesis type (P<.05). No significant differences were found in relation to the following factors: gender, diameter and bone quality (P>.05). CONCLUSION. Related factors such as age, implant type, length, location and prosthesis type had a significant effect on the implant survival.