The Comparison between the success rates of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar.
10.5051/jkape.2004.34.1.101
- Author:
Hang Bin LEE
1
;
Jung Won PAIK
;
Chang Sung KIM
;
Seong Ho CHOI
;
Keun Woo LEE
;
Kyoo Sung CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Oral Science Research Center, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Single implant;
success rate;
posterior single implant
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Bite Force;
Humans;
Mandible;
Maxilla;
Molar*;
Prostheses and Implants;
Tooth
- From:The Journal of the Korean Academy of Periodontology
2004;34(1):101-112
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Osseointegrated implnats have proven to be successful in both full and partial edentulous patients since the 1960s and recently have shown successful results when used to restore single tooth missing. However, in most studies reporting the success of single implants, single implants replacing anterior teeth are more frequently mentioned than posterior single implants. Moreover, in studies regarding posterior single implants, the replaced region seemed to be variable; the maxilla, mandible and areas from the first premolar to the second molar were mentioned. However, considering the difference in bone quality in the mandible and maxilla, and the increased occlusal force in the posterior region, the success rates in each region may be different. In this study, the cumulative success rates and amount of bone loss of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar, respectively, were compared and analyzed to come to the following conclusion. 1. The 20 (20 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular first molar region were all successful and showed a 100% 5 year cumulative success rate. Among the 27 (24 persons) single implants replacing the mandibular second molar, 8 failed (27.63%) showing a 5 year cumulative success rate of 70.37%. 2. Among the 8 failed implants, one showed symptoms of postoperative infection and one complained of parenthesia. 6 implants failed after functional loading; 5 showed mobility and one resulted in fixture fracture. 3. After the attachment of the prosthesis, there was no significant statistical difference regarding the marginal bone loss in group 1 and group 2 during the checkup period (P>0.05). In conclusion, restoration of the mandibular first molar using single implants was found to be an excellent treatment modality, and when replacing mandibular second molars with single implants, poor bone quality and risk of overloading must be considered.
