• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.306-313
• /
• 2009

Objectives: The aim of the present review was to evaluate survival rate and various factors associated with survival of osseointegrated implants. Patients and methods: The clinical comparisons were performed to evaluate survival rate of 794 endosseous implants that had been inserted between 2004 through 2008 in relation to sex and age of patients, position of implant, implant system and surface characteristics, length and diameter of implant, and bone graft technique. Results: The survival rate of implant was 94.3% in posterior area of maxilla and 98.6% in posterior area of mandible by position of implant, a statistically significant difference. As to diameter of implant, survival rate was 98.4% between the 4.0 and 4.5 mm and 75.0% in larger than 5.0 mm, that was statistically significant difference. There was a statistically significant difference regard to bone graft and surgical technique. The implant survival rate was 89.0% in a placement site which performed sinus lifting, and in case of implant placement with guided bone regeneration technique and without bone grafting was 97.6% and 100% each. Conclusion: According to these findings, this study establishes a relationship between survival rate of implant and position, surface characteristics, diameter of implant and bone graft technique.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.sup2
• /
• pp.309-316
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the survival rates of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses and compare the results obtained with graft materials, implant surfaces and timing of implant placement. Materials and Methods: Between January 1996 and December 2005, 391 implants were placed in 161 patients who underwent sinus grafting treatment simultaneously or separately at Ewha Womans University Hospital. According to inclusion criteria, 272 implants were placed in 102 patients with 112 sinus grafts (30 females, 72 males), aged 26 to 88 years (mean age $49.0{\pm}9.7$). The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 134 months (mean F/U $47{\pm}32$). Survival rates were evaluated according to graft material, implant surface and timing of implant placement. The Kaplan-Meier procedure and the log rank (Mantel-Cox) test were used to estimate survival rates and test for equality of survival rates between different groups of patients. Results: Ten-year cumulative survival rate for implants placed in the grafted sinuses was 90.1%. The survival rates for autogenous bone, combination and bone substitutes were 94.6%, 85.9% and 100%, respectively (p > 0.05). According to implant surface, survival rates were 84.8% in machined group and 97.5% in rough group (p < 0.05). The survival rates were 92.9% in delayed group and 86.0% in simultaneous group (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Ten-year cumulative survival rate for implants placed in the grafted sinuses was 90.1%. Rough-surfaced implants have a higher survival rate than machined-surfaced implants when placed in grafted sinuses (p < 0.05).

• 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 Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.194-206
• /
• 2023

Purpose: A novel attachment system for implant-retained overdentures (IRODs) with novel material combinations for improved mechanical resilience and prosthodontic success (Novaloc) has been recently introduced as an alternative to an existing system (Locator). This study investigated whether differences between the Novaloc and Locator attachment systems translate into differences in implant survival, implant success, and patient-centered outcomes when applied in a real-world in-practice comparative setting in patients restored with mandibular IRODs supported by 2 interforaminal implants (2-IRODs). Methods: This prospective, intra-subject crossover comparison compared 20 patients who received 2 intra-foraminal bone level tapered implants restored with full acrylic overdentures using either the Locator or Novaloc attachment system. After 6 months of function, the attachment in the corresponding dentures was switched, and the definitive attachment system type was delivered based on the patient's preference after 12 months. For the definitive attachment system, implant survival was evaluated after 24 months. The primary outcomes of this study were oral health-related quality of life and patient preferences related to prosthetic and implant survival. Secondary outcomes included implant survival rate and success, prosthetic survival, perceived general health, and patient satisfaction. Results: Patient-centered outcomes and patient preferences between attachment systems were comparable, with relatively high overall patient satisfaction levels for both attachment systems. No difference in the prosthetic survival rate between study groups was detected. The implant survival rate over the follow-up period after 24 months in both groups was 100%. Conclusions: The results of this in-practice comparison indicate that both attachment systems represent comparable candidates for the prosthodontic retention of 2-IRODs. Both systems showed high rates of patient satisfaction and implant survival. The influence of material combinations of the retentive system on treatment outcomes between the tested systems remains inconclusive and requires further investigations.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.69-87
• /
• 2002

Implant material, implant design, surface quality, status of the bone, surgical technique, and implant loading conditions were regarded as prerequisites for osseointegration which is a prime condition for implant success. The aim of this review paper was to investigate the survival rate of single implants in relation to the prerequisites for osseointegration. Fifty-eight papers reporting survival rates of single implants were selected by use of the 'PubMed' and hand searching. The survival rate of single implants were assessed with reference to factors influencing osseointegration. The results showed that single implants in general showed a high survival rate except a few failures in certain extreme conditions and early stages. Those failures and complications such as screw loosening and esthetic problem were almost solved with the development of implant components and surgical techniques and a better understanding of biology around a single implant. Single-tooth implant-replacement is now considered as a reliable and predictable treatment option for a single missing tooth and its application seems to expand to compromised situations which were previously thought to be impossible for single implant therapy.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.165-180
• /
• 2007

Dental Implants have been proved to be successful prosthetic modality in edentulous patients for 10 years. However, there are few reports on the survival of implant according to location in molar regions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the $4{\sim}5$ years' cumulative survival rate and the cause of failure of dental implants in different locations for maxillary and mandibular molars. Among the implants placed in molar regions in Gwangju Mir Dental Hospital from Jan. 2001 to Jun. 2002, 473 implants from 166 patients(age range; $26{\sim}75$) were followed and evaluated retrospectively for the causes of failure. We included 417 implants in 126 periodontally compromised patients, 56 implants in 40 periodontal healthy patients, and 205 maxillary and 268 mandibular molar implants. Implant survival rates by various subject factors, surgical factors, fixture factors, and prosthetic factors at each location were compared using Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival analysis was done for follow-up(FU) periods. The overall failure rate at 5 years was 1O.2%(subject level) and 5.5%(implant level). The overall survival rates of implants during the FU periods were 94.5% with 91.3% in maxillary first molar, 91.1% in maxillary second molar, 99.2% in mandibular first molar and 94,8% in mandibular second molar regions. The survival rates differed significantly between both jaws and among different implant locations(p<0.05), whereas the survival rates of functionally loaded implants were similar in different locations. The survival rates were not different according to gender, age, previous periodontal status, surgery stage, bone graft type, or the prosthetic type. The overall survival rate was low in dental implant of too wide diameter(${\geq}5.75$ mm) and the survival rate was significantly lower for wider implant diameter(p

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.122-135
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to assess the long-term cumulative survival rate of titanium, sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implants over a 10-year follow-up period and investigate the factors affecting the survival rate and change in marginal bone loss (MBL). Methods: The study included 400 patients who underwent dental implant placement at the Department of Periodontology of Seoul National University Dental Hospital (SNUDH) between 2005 and 2015. Panoramic radiographic images and dental records of patients were collected and examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, and multiple regression analysis to determine the survival rates and identify any factors related to implant failure and MBL. Results: A total of 782 implants were placed with a follow-up period ranging from 0 to 16 years (mean: 8.21±3.75 years). Overall, 25 implants were lost, resulting in a cumulative survival rate of 96.8%. Comparisons of the research variables regarding cumulative survival rate mostly yielded insignificant results. The mean mesial and distal MBLs were 1.85±2.31 mm and 1.59±2.03 mm, respectively. Factors influencing these values included age, diabetes mellitus (DM), jaw location, implant diameter, bone augmentation surgery, and prosthetic unit. Conclusions: This study found that the implant survival rates at SNUDH fell within the acceptable published criteria. The patients' sex, age, DM status, implant location, implant design, implant size, surgical type, bone augmentation, and prosthetic unit had no discernible influence on long-term implant survival. Sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implants might offer advantages in terms of implant longevity and consistent clinical outcomes.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.611-620
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the long term survival rates of the most posterior single tooth implant and to evaluate the influence of implant characteristics on implant survival. Material and Methods: This retrospective report presents findings on 37 patients with 43 implants replacing single molars. The inclusion criteria were having implants replacing a molar of the most posterior region and follow-up data over at least 6 months. Data were recorded regarding the incidence of complications and survival rates of these implants. Results: The range of follow-up was from 9 to 66 months(mean: 40.2 months). The cumulative survival rate of total implants was 93.0% which reflects the loss of three implants: one had broken neck, one implant failed because of infection, one implant showed failed osseointegration. Abutment- screws loosening occurred in five implants(11.6%). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, a single tooth-implant can serve as a good long-term and predictable treatment modality to replace the most posterior teeth with low complication and failure rates.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.186-199
• /
• 2012

Purpose: Single implants, of which screw loosening has been observed frequently, presents problems such as fixtures fractures, marginal bone loss, and inflammation of the soft tissue around the implant. However, the single implant is more conservative, cost effective, and predictable compared to the 3 unit bridge with respect to the long-term outcome. This study evaluated the survival rate as well as future methods aimed at increasing the survival rate in single implants in posterior teeth. Methods: Among the implants placed in the Dankook University Dental Hospital department of Oral & Maxillofacial surgery from January 2001 to June 2008, 599 implants placed in the maxillar and mandibular posterior were evaluated retrospectively. Survival rates were investigated according to implant location, cause of tooth loss, gender, age, general disease, fixture diameter and length, surface texture, implant type and shape, presence of bone graft, surgery stage, surgeons, bone quality and opposite teeth. Results: Out of 599 single implants in posterior teeth, 580 implants survived and the survival rate was 96.8%. The difference in survival rate was statistically significant according to the implant location. The survival rate was low (84.2%) in implants exhibiting a wide diameter (${\geq}5.1mm$) and the surface treated by the acid etching group demonstrated a significantly lower survival rate (91.1%). One stage surgical procedure, which implemented a relatively better bone quality survival rate (100%), was higher than the two stage surgical procedure (96.1%). The survival rate of type IV bone quality (75%) was significantly lower than the other bone quality. Conclusion: Single posterior teeth implant treatments should use an improved surface finishing fixture as well as careful and safe procedures when performing implant surgery in the maxilla premolar and molar regions since bone quality is poor.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.44-52
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single type of narrow-diameter implant (NDI) by investigating its survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). In addition, variables possibly related to implant survival and MBL were investigated to identify potential risk factors. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective study involving 49 patients who had received 3.0-mm diameter TSIII implants (Osstem Implant Co.) at Seoul National University Dental Hospital. In total, 64 implants were included, and dental records and radiographic data were collected from 2017 to 2022. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate the implant survival rate and to investigate the effects of age, sex, jaw, implant location, implant length, the stage of surgery, guided bone regeneration, type of implant placement, and the surgeon's proficiency (resident or professor) on implant survival. The MBL of the NDIs was measured, and the factors influencing MBL were evaluated. Results: The mean observation period was 30.5 months (interquartile range, 26.75-45 months), and 6 out of 64 implants failed. The survival rate of the NDIs was 90.6%, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age was associated with implant failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31, P=0.01). The mean MBL was 0.44±0.75 mm, and no factors showed statistically significant associations with greater MBL. Conclusions: NDIs can be considered a primary alternative when standard-diameter implants are unsuitable. However, further studies are required to confirm their long-term stability.