Retrospective studies of dental implant placement at each intraoral site and situation.
10.5051/jkape.2007.37.4.805
- Author:
Ji Youn HONG
1
;
Gyung Joon CHAE
;
Ui Won JUNG
;
Chang Sung KIM
;
Kyoo Sung CHO
;
Jung Kiu CHAE
;
Chong Kwan KIM
;
Seong Ho CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University, College of Dentistry, Korea. shchoi726@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
retrospective study;
dental implant;
success rate;
survival rate
- MeSH:
Bone Density;
Dental Implants*;
Dentistry;
Humans;
Maxilla;
Maxillary Sinus;
Molar;
Retrospective Studies*;
Survival Rate;
Tooth;
Transplants
- From:The Journal of the Korean Academy of Periodontology
2007;37(4):805-824
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Developments in micro/macrostructures of implants and surgical techniques brought out stable outcomes of implant dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distributions of implant patients, the types of implanted sites, and the success or survival rates of various implant systems and to analyze the implant placement done at each specificintraoral site and situation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of dental implantations collected between 1992 and 2006 at the Department of Periodontology in 00000 University Hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: 1. Largest part of the patients were at the age of 40s and 50s in bothgender who lost their teeth mostly by periodontaldiseases and caries at the posterior intraoral sites as major ones. Bone densities of type II(mandible) and III(maxilla) were likely to be seen with quantity of type B. Lengths of the implants between 10 and 15 mm and wide platform took the largest part. 2. Survival rates of Implantium(R)(98.8%), Xive(R)(100%) and ITI TE(R)(100%) were high when Frialit-2(R) showed 82%(poor bone density area) or 87.2%(combined with additional therapy). IMZ(R) had lowest cumulative survival(67.5%) and success rate(49.4%) amongst all. 3. Replacement with 2 wide or 3 regular platforms showed no significant differences in survival rate and marginal bone loss atmandibular posterior area. In single restoration of mandibular second molar, 5-year success rate of machined surface Branemark(R)(70.37%) was lower than that of rough surface ITI(R) SLA(100%). 4. Replacement of single tooth in anterior area showed high survival rate of 94.5%. 5. The success rates of Branemark Ti-Unite and ITI SLA at posterior maxilla with poor bone density both showed stable outcomes. 6. 10-year cumulative survival rate of implants with maxillary sinus augmentation by lateral window approach appeared to be 96.60%. Low survival rate(75%) was shown when there were more than two complications combined. Height of grafted bone remained stable above the implant apex. CONCLUSIONS : Rough surfaced implants showed stable outcomes in most of the situation including poor bone density and additional therapy combined.
