• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.237-242
• /
• 2009

Implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses provide a proper treatment modality with reliable success. The SS $II^{(R)}$ Implants is a one-stage nonsubmerged threaded titanium implants with Resorbable Blasting Media (RBM) surface developed by Osstem company (Busan, Korea) in October of 2002. This study is to evaluate the survival rate of the SS $II^{(R)}$ Implants for 4 years using radiographic parameters and to review the retrieved implants by the cytotoxicity tests. Since September 2003, 439 SS $II^{(R)}$ implants had been used for 173 patients at Ewha Womans University Medical Center in Korea. Patients consisted of 91 females (52.6 %) and 82 males (47.4 %). The patients' mean age was $42\;{\pm}16$ years, ranging from 21 to 83 years. The follow-up period ranged from 9 to 46 months (mean F/U $24.2\;{\pm}\;10.2$ months). The results are as follows; 1. Of 439 implants, 17 implants were removed and 4-year cumulative survival rate was 96.1%. 2. 82.3% of 17 failed implants were founded during healing phase, and 94.1% of failed fixtures were removed within 5 months after implantation. 3. Crestal bone around the implants was resorbed to 1 mm in 89.0%, to 1 - 2 mm loss of the marginal bone in 8.3%, and the bone loss over 2 mm was occurred in 2.7%. 4. Microscopic examination of the retrieved implants disclosed Grade 0 cytotoxicity in 4 and Grade 1 cytotoxicity in 2 of 6 groups divided according to LOT numbers. Inhibition rate with optical density was acceptable as low as ISO standard.

• 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.327-336
• /
• 2007

Purpose This study was planned to compare and evaluate the stability of implant using $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Material and methods Artificial bone and RBM(resorbable blasting media) surface blasted implants(Osstem US II, SS II implants - diameter: 4mm, length: 13mm) were used. To measure the stability of installed implants, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ were used. In the first experiment, five implants were installed in D1(external type implants) and D3(internal type implants). In the second experiment, 4 internal type implants were divided in two groups and installed in D1 artificial bone with different depth. In the third experiment, two external implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone each and two internal implants were installed in D1 and D3 artificial bone. In all groups, their stability were measured by $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$. Results In all groups, $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ both showed reliable measurement values. The value difference between $Osstell^{TM}$ and Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ was observed but the difference was small and clinically acceptable. Conclusion These results suggest that the use of Osstell $Mentor^{TM}$ has clinical relevance in the assessment of implant stability.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.35-41
• /
• 2009

Objective : This study sought to investigate the clinical survival rate of two implants with different surfaces: resorbable blasting media (RBM)-treated and calcium metaphosphate (CMP)-coated implant. Study design : SSII non-submerged implants (Osstem, Seoul, Korea) were placed in a total of 48 patients with mean age of 38.8. At least 31 patients in the experimental group had a CMP-coated implant, and 1 patient in the control group received a, RBM surface implant. The evaluation period was between April 2006 and December 2007. Radiographs, periotest, clinical periodontal examination, and prosthetic adjustment and occlusion were used. Results : The survival rate of the experimental and control groups after 1 year was 97.2% and 100%, respectively. The Wald confidence interval reported for the experimental group was not inferior to the control group. Conclusion : No significant differences were found between the RBM and CMP groups. The observed data suggest that CMP-coated methods can provide favorable clinical results for the functioning and healing of dental implants.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.554-560
• /
• 2008

In posterior maxilla, it is difficult to achieve primary stability of implants due to sinus pneumatization, alveolar bone loss, and low bone quality. The accurate and objective primary stability assessment is important for good prognosis of implants. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the primary stability of the non-submerged, internal type implants with maxillary sinus augmentation using deproteinized bovine bone mineral by a resonance frequency analyzer, when residual alveolar bone height is under 8mm Materials and methods: A total of 20 implants was placed into 5 grafted maxillary sinuses in 5 patients. Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (Bio-$Oss^{(R)}$) was used as graft material. SS II implants (diameter 4.1mm, and length 11.5mm, SLA suface)) were placed. All of the patients received maxillary sinus graft procedure by 1-step technique. Residual bone height was $1.3{\sim}7.8mm$ (mean 4.4mm) measured by panorama radiography. After implant placement, RFA was measured at 4,8,12,20 weeks. The results were divided into 2 groups; RFA value under 4mm and over 5mm of bone height. It was statistically analyzed. Results: 1. The primary stability of implants was increased with time 2. The RFA value was above 65 ISQ at 12 weeks 3. There was no correlation between RFA and residual alveolar bone height in maxillary sinus augmentation by 1-step technique. Conclusion: 1-step surgical procedure is a feasible option for patients with as little as 4mm residual alveolar bone height, when utilizing non-submerged, internal type implants with xenografts.