• Journal of Veterinary Clinics
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-61
• /
• 2010

Tooth restoration with implant placement have been interested in modern veterinary dentistry. It is important to reduce the interval between the tooth extraction and the insertion of the implants, to determine the restoration time after implant placement in dogs The aim of the this study was to compare the bone mineral apposition rate of immediately loaded implants with an unloaded control during the early healing state in the artificial extraction mandible. In four Beagles, two premolar sockets (PM2 and PM3) of the both sides of the mandible were installed with a one stage titanium mini-implant with a length of 11 mm and a diameter of 3.37 mm immediately after tooth extraction. Provisional restroration was given to implants, 3 weeks after implant placement in the left side (immediate loading) and 12 weeks in the right side (delayed loading), respectively. Radiographic and histologic examinations were performed. Radiographic evaluation revealed no significant difference between two groups. Bone-implant contact was $47.1{\pm}8.9$ in immediate loading and $50.2{\pm}8.2$ in delayed loading, interthread bone density was $78.7{\pm}10.9$ in immediate loading and $73.1{\pm}15.5$ in delayed loading, and peri-implant bone density was $95.4{\pm}7.1$ in immediate loading and $95.0{\pm}5.2$ in delayed loading, respectively. Three histologic analyses showed no significant difference between delayed and immediate loading. Followed by this study, the immediate loading of implants insterted into fresh extraction sockets after tooth extraction could be considered in veterinary dentistry.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.46 no.6
• /
• pp.435-439
• /
• 2020

Extraction socket preservation (ESP) is widely performed after tooth extraction for future implant placement. For successful outcome of implants after extractions, clinicians should be acquainted with the principles and indications of ESP. It is recommended that ESP be actively implemented in cases of esthetic areas, severe bone defects, and delayed implant placement. Dental implant placement is recommended at least 4 months after ESP.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.241-248
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present the clinical results of maxillary sinus augmentation implants and to evaluate the effects of various factors on the implant survival rate. Methods: In a total of 112 patients, 293 implants after sinus augmentation were performed. The total survival rate and the influence of the following factors on implant survival were evaluated; patient characteristics (sex, age, smoking, general disease), graft material, implant surface, implant installation stage, site of implant placement, length and width of implant, closure method for osseous window, residual alveolar bone height. Results: 1. Age ranged from 16 to 70 yr, with a mean of 45.7 yr. 2. Cumulative survival rate for the 293 implants with the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure was 94.9%. 3. Simultaneous implant installation was performed in 122 patients and delayed implant installation was performed in 117 implants. The average healing period after sinus elevation was 7.3 months for delayed implant installation and this procedure had a significantly higher survival rate. 4. There were no significant differences in sex, age, smoking, general disease, site of implant placement, length and width of implant, residual alveolar bone height and the survival rate. 5. RBM (Resorbable Blasting Media) implant surface and allograft groups had significantly lower survival rates. Conclusion: These data suggest that maxillary sinus augmentation may give more predictable results for autogenous bone grafts and delayed implant placement.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 2021

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in fresh extraction sockets exhibits similar survival and success rates to delayed implant placement in healed sockets. Several advantages of IIP involve shortened total treatment time, reduction of the number of invasive surgeries, and subsequent reduction of patient discomfort due to lack of additional surgeries. The major shortcomings in IIP, however, include the inability to obtain early bony support, presence of a gap between the extraction socket and fixture, and the inability to cover the fixture with soft tissue, leading to increased risk of infection and implant loss. When IIP is performed, atraumatic or minimally traumatic extractions, conservation of the septal bone in molars, minimal flap elevation or flapless surgery, bone grafting the gap between the fixture and the extraction socket, and coverage with soft tissue or a membrane must be considered.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.60-65
• /
• 2013

The maxillary floor sinus augmentation is considered as a safe and predictable procedure to ensure optimal implant placement. However, this procedure may have a variety of intra-surgical or post-surgical complications, also the major drawback of the procedure is deemed maxillary sinusitis. This case is a very unusual delayed occurrence of acute maxillary sinusitis after simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation, using xenograft and implant placement. This report describes a serious complication of the maxillary sinus augmentation.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.11a
• /
• pp.29-29
• /
• 2000

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.363-371
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. On maxillofacial tumor patients, oral implant placement prior to postoperative radiotherapy can shorten the period of prosthetic reconstruction. There is still lack of research on effects of post-implant radiotherapy such as healing process or loading time, which is important for prosthodontic treatment planning. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of post-implant local irradiation on the osseointegration of implants during different healing stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Custom-made implants were placed bilaterally on maxillary posterior edentulous area 4 weeks after extraction of the maxillary first molars in Forty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats. Experimental group (exp.) received radiation after implant surgery and the other group (control) didn't. Each group was divided into three sub-groups according to the healing time (2, 4, and 8 week) from implant placement. The exp. group 1, 2 received 15-Gy radiation 1 day after implant placement (immediate irradiation). The exp. group 3 received 15-Gy radiation 4 weeks after implant placement (delayed irradiation). RESULTS. The bone mineral density (BMD) was significantly lower in the immediate irradiation groups. BMD was similar in the delayed irradiation group and the control group. The irradiated groups exhibited a lower bone-to-implant contact ratio, although the difference was not statistically significant. The irradiated groups also exhibited a significantly lower bone volume and higher empty lacuna count than the control groups. No implant failure due to local irradiation was found in this study. CONCLUSION. Within the limits of this study, the timing of local irradiation critically influences the bone healing mechanism, which is related to loading time of prostheses.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.333-339
• /
• 2007

Adequate bone quantity is one of the important factor to obtain osseointegration after implantation. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has widely used in implantation for reconstruction of bony defects. Since introducing this procedure, there are many studies about survival rate of implants, changing in surrounding bone volume after function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of resorption according to placement timing and survival rate after function. The subjects were patients who had been operated with GBR from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. They were divided into simultaneous and delayed placement group. The follow up had been performed at the time of just after GBR, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24-month later and standard periapical radiographs were taken to estimate the bone level at the time. The total average of bone level change in radiographs was 1.94mm(${\pm}0.25$), and 1.92mm(${\pm}0.72$) in simultaneous installation, 2.03mm(${\pm}0.25$) in delayed installation. In this report, the survival rates were 92.2% in simulataneous group and 92.3% in delayed group. Insufficient primary stability, early contamination of wound, overloading, poor oral hygiene, and infection were thought to be associated factors in the failed cases.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.50.1-50.6
• /
• 2016

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of implants that were placed within the maxillary sinus that has a perforated sinus membrane by the lateral window approach. Methods: We examined the medical records of the patients who had implants placed within the maxillary sinus that has a perforated sinus membrane by the lateral approach at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Chonnam National University Dental Hospital from January 2009 to December 2015. There were 41 patients (male:female = 28:13). The mean age of patients was $57.2{\pm}7.2years$ at the time of operation (range, 20-76 years). The mean follow-up duration was 2.1 years (range, 0.5-5 years) after implant placement. Regarding the method of sinus elevation, only the lateral approach was included in this study. Results: Ninety-nine implants were placed in 41 patients whose sinus membranes were perforated during lateral approach. The perforated sinus membranes were repaired with a resorbable collagen membrane. Simultaneous implant placements with sinus bone grafting were performed in 37 patients, whereas delayed placements were done in four patients. The average residual bone height was $3.4{\pm}2.0mm$ in cases of simultaneous implant placement and $0.6{\pm}0.9mm$ in cases of delayed placement. Maxillary bone graft with implant placement, performed on the patients with a perforated maxillary sinus membrane did not fail, and the cumulative implant survival rate was 100%. Conclusions: In patients with perforations of the sinus mucosa, sinus elevation and implant placement are possible regardless of the location and size of membrane perforation. Repair using resorbable collagen membrane is a predictable and reliable technique.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.23-36
• /
• 2013

To evaluate the 3-dimensional features of the grafted bone with maxillary sinus augmentation and to assess the relation between the degree of bone resorption and the type of bone grafting source and implant, and the operation method. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving sinus augmentation procedures for implant positioning was conducted: radiographic analysis of the volume and area of bone grafts was performed. The volumetric remodeling.measured at 6 months after implant positioning as the percentage of residual bone graft.was correlated to type of graft materials and operation methods. 53 dental implants positioned with sinus bone graft in 15 patients at Wonkwang University Sanbon Dental Hospital. Computed tomography scans,taken implant positioning after 6 months, showed greater resorption values for the group of $Puros^{(R)}$ graft alone from the group of mixed with $Puros^{(R)}$ and various bone graft (P<0.05, respectively). And resorption values according to operation methods have statistically significant difference(P<0.05). Volume change ratio of bone graft showed greater values for the group of delayed implant position from the group of simultaneously implant placement with bone graft. Retrospective data analysis shows that the method of graft with $Puros^{(R)}$ alone may occur greater resorption of graft materials than mixed graft material with $Puros^{(R)}$ and other graft materials. The group of simultaneously implant placement with bone graft also display smaller resorption ratio of bone graft than the group of delayed implant placement.