The Distribution of Implant Patients and the Type of Implant Site.
10.5051/jkape.2004.34.4.819
- Author:
Ji Eun PARK
1
;
Jeong Ho YUN
;
Ui Won JUNG
;
Kyoo Sung CHO
;
Jung Kiu CHAI
;
Chong Kwan KIM
;
Seong Ho CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Implant;
Patient type;
Implant distribution;
Cause of tooth loss;
Bone quality;
Bone quantity
- MeSH:
Crowns;
Dental Caries;
Dentists;
Dentures;
Female;
Humans;
Korea;
Male;
Mandible;
Maxilla;
Periodontal Diseases;
Prostheses and Implants;
Tooth Loss
- From:The Journal of the Korean Academy of Periodontology
2004;34(4):819-836
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
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 10-14mm 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.
