• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.50 no.1
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2012

Purpose: This study was to compare the cumulative survival rate (CSR) of Br${\aa}$nemark machined surface implants and TiUnite$^{TM}$ imlants and to analyze association between risk factors and the CSR of the implants. Materials and methods: A retrospective study design was used to collect long-term follow-up clinical data from dental records of 156 patients treated with 541 Br${\aa}$nemark machined and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implants at Korea University Guro hospital in South Korea from 1993 through 2008. Machined implant and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant were compared by CSR. Exposure variables such as gender, systemic disease, location, implant length, diameter, prosthesis type, opposing occlusion type, date of implant placement, type of edentulous space, abutment type, existence of splinting with natural teeth, and existence of cantilever were collected. Life table analysis was undertaken to examine the CSR. Cox regression method was conducted to assess the association between potential risk factors and overall CSR (${\alpha}$=.05). Results: Patient ages ranged from 16 to 75 years old (mean age, 51 years old). Implants were more frequently placed in men than women (94 men versus 63 women). Since 1993, 264 Br${\aa}$nemark machined implants were inserted in 79 patients and since 2001, 277 TiUnite$^{TM}$ implants were inserted in 77 patients. A total survival rate of 86.07% was observed in Br${\aa}$nemark and Nobel Biocare TiUnite$^{TM}$ during 15 years. A survival rate of machined implant during 15 years was 82.89% and that of TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant during 5 years was 98.74%. The implant CSR revealed lower rates association with several risk factors such as, systemic disease, other accompanied surgery, implant location, and Kennedy classification. Conclusion: Clinical performance of Br${\aa}$nemark machined and TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant demonstrated a high level of predictability. In this study, TiUnite$^{TM}$ implant was more successful than machined implant. The implant CSR was associated with several risk factors.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.291-298
• /
• 2021

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare five interdental cleansing products' effectiveness on removing artificial dental plaque on the interdental space of zirconia crowns. Materials and methods. A model with abutments on the right mandibular second premolar and first molar were prepared. 10 zirconia crowns for each abutment were fabricated. After applying artificial dental plaque between the zirconia crowns, a single clinician attempted to remove the plaque with five products: interdental toothbrush, end-tuft toothbrush, dental floss, Easypick, Water pik. They were conducted 10 times per group. The aspect and area of removed surfaces were analyzed using images taken with a digital camera. One factor analysis of variance was performed as a statistical analysis, and a post-hoc test was performed using the Scheffé method (P < .05). Results. There were differences in the area and the pattern according to the characteristics of the products. The largest area, including the marginal portion, was removed in the dental floss group. Interdental toothbrush group was the most effective in removing the dental plaque at the marginal portion. Easypick was less effective than the interdental toothbrush. The end-tuft toothbrush showed better results than other products in cleansing mesiobuccal and distobuccal area, but could not cleanse the area directly below the contact point. In Water pik group, artificial dental plaque was scarcely removed. The removal rate of artificial dental plaque was in the order of floss (69.47%), end-tuft toothbrush (49.36%), interdental toothbrush (44.20%), Easy pick (13.04%), and Water pik (0.59%). Conclusion. Dental floss showed the highest removal rate in the interdental space restored with zirconia crowns, while interdental toothbrush was the most effective in removing the dental plaque at the marginal portion.