• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.28-40
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide long-term data about the correlation between multifactorial local factors and the survival of implants. Material and methods: During 19 years (1991 to 2009), 2796 implants were placed in 879 patients. From dental charts and radiographs, the following data were collected: patient's age at implant placement, gender, implant system, surface, length, diameter, location of implant placement, bone quality, primary stability, type of prosthesis. The correlations between these data and implant survival were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Chi-square test, odds ratio. Results: 1. Among the 2796 implants, 150 implants failed that resulted in a cumulative survival rate of 94.64%. The cumulative survival rate of smooth surface implants (91.76%) was lower than rough surface implants (96.02%). 2. Anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability, type of prosthesis, patient's age and gender were significantly associated with implant survival (P < .05). 3. No significant difference in implant survival was found in relation to the following factors: implant length, bone quality, diameter of rough surface implants and type of rough surface according to implant manufacturer (P < .05). Conclusions: Local factors such as anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability and type of prosthesis have a significant effect on implant survival.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.891-900
• /
• 2006

Perforation of maxillary sinus is a common complication of implant placement in posterior maxilla. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognosis of sinus perforated implants placed in partially edentulous maxillae. Eighteen sinus perforated implants in 15 patients were examined for cumulative survival rate, radiographic preoperative bone level, and radiographic marginal bone level change. Twenty-two non-perforated implants in the same patients served as control. The results were as follows; 1. There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative survival rate between sinus perforated implants and non-perforated implants (P>0.05). 2. There was no statistically significant difference in the marginal bone level between sinus perforated implants and non-perforated implants (P>0.05). 3. There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative survival rate according to the preoperative bone level (P>0.05). These results suggests that perforation of maxillary sinus may not affect implant success in posterior maxillae.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.58-63
• /
• 2013

Purpose: The aim of this study was to measure the peri-implant bone length surrounding implants that penetrate the sinus membrane at the posterior maxilla and to evaluate the survival rate of these implants. Methods: Treatment records and orthopantomographs of 39 patients were reviewed and analyzed. The patients had partial edentulism at the posterior maxilla and limited vertical bone height below the maxillary sinus. Implants were inserted into the posterior maxilla, penetrating the sinus membrane. Four months after implant insertion, provisional resin restorations were temporarily cemented to the abutments and used for one month. Then, a final impression was taken at the abutment level, and final cement-retained restorations were delivered with mutually protected occlusion. The complications from the implant surgery were examined, the number of failed implants was counted, and the survival rate was calculated. The periimplant bone lengths were measured using radiographs. The changes in initial and final peri-implant bone lengths were statistically analyzed. Results: Nasal bleeding occurred after implant surgery in three patients. No other complications were found. There were no failures of the investigated implants, resulting in a survival rate of 100%. Significantly more bone gain around the implants (estimated difference=-0.6 mm, P=0.025) occurred when the initial residual bone height was less than 5 mm compared to the >5 mm groups. No significant change in peri-implant bone length was detected when the initial residual bone height was 5 mm or larger. Conclusions: This study suggests that implants penetrating the sinus membrane at the posterior maxilla in patients with limited vertical bone height may be safe and functional.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.50 no.2
• /
• pp.70-79
• /
• 2024

Objectives: The surgical guide is a static computer-assisted device used for implant surgery planning and guidance. By taking an impression and referring to the patients' three-dimensional computed tomography scan of the desired implant site, a surgical guide can be created. During surgery, the surgical guide aids in achieving the designed implant placement position and direction. We examined and evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of implant surgery using surgical guides. Materials and Methods: This study investigated a total of 15 patients with 32 implants that were placed using surgical guides from 2009 to 2011 with a mean follow-up period extended beyond 10 years. Patient demographics and implant survival rates were recorded. We analyzed marginal bone loss (MBL) by assessing the radiographs acquired at installation, three months after installation, and one month, one, two, and five years after prosthesis delivery. Results: The mean patient age was 57.33 years at implant placement. Of the 32 implants, five implants were placed in the anterior region and 27 implants were in the posterior region. Six implants failed and three of them were replaced, resulting in an 81.25% survival rate. The mean follow-up period was 10 years and nine months. Mean MBL compared to post-installation was significantly higher than at three months after installation, and one month, one, two, and five years after prosthesis delivery. Mean MBL at three months after installation, and one month, one year, and two years were significantly higher compared to the previous visit (P<0.05). However, MBL at five years after prosthesis delivery did not differ significantly compared to at two years. Conclusion: In this study, implant rehabilitation assisted by surgical guides exhibited favorable survival rates. With the limitation of the sample amount in this study, further research and more samples are required to evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness of surgical guides.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.813-822
• /
• 2005

The predictable outcome of implant placement in the atrophic maxilla with sinus floor elevation procedure(osteotome sinus floor elevation technique and window opening technique) is well documented. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite implant system and ITI SLA implant system placed in the atrophic posterior maxilla with sinus floor elevation procedure. Eighty patients received placement of $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite implants(195 implants) in their atrophic posterior Maxilla with sinus floor elevation procedure(153 osteotome sinus floor elevation technique and 42 window opening procedure). Fifty patients received placement of ITI SLA implants(83 implants) in their atrophic posterior Maxilla with sinus floor elevation procedure(77 osteotome sinus floor elevation technique and 6 window opening procedure). Chart review were taken from each patient. The total failed implants were seven and the total implant survival rate was 96.4% in $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite system. The total failed implants were one and the total implant survival rate was 98.8% in ITI SLA system. The implant survival rate with osteotome technique was 96% and 97.6% with window opening in $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite system. The implant survival rate with osteotome technique was 98.7% and 100% with window opening. The implant survival rate with osteotome technique was 96% and 97.6% with window opening in ITI SLA system. The results of this evaluation show that the placement of $Br{\aa}nemark$ Ti-Unite system as well as ITI SLA system is a reasonable treatment option for patients with the atrophic posterior maxillary area.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.245-252
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. To present a literature review on implant overdentures after a brief survey of bone loss after extraction of all teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Papers on alveolar bone loss and implant overdentures have been studied for a narrative review. RESULTS. Bone loss of the alveolar process after tooth extraction occurs with great individual variation, impossible to predict at the time of extraction. The simplest way to prevent bone loss is to avoid extraction of all teeth. To keep a few teeth and use them or their roots for a tooth or root-supported overdenture substantially reduces bone loss. Jaws with implant-supported prostheses show less bone loss than jaws with conventional dentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures provide patients with better outcomes than do conventional dentures, regarding satisfaction, chewing ability and oral-health-related quality of life. There is no strong evidence for the superiority of one overdenture retention-system over the others regarding patient satisfaction, survival, peri-implant bone loss and relevant clinical factors. Mandibular single midline implant overdentures have shown promising results but long-term results are not yet available. For a maxillary overdenture 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar provide high survival both for implants and overdenture. CONCLUSION. In edentulous mandibles, 2-implant overdentures provide excellent long-term success and survival, including patient satisfaction and improved oral functions. To further reduce the costs a single midline implant overdenture can be a promising option. In the maxilla, overdentures supported on 4 to 6 implants splinted with a bar have demonstrated good functional results.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.102-108
• /
• 2014

Purpose: Rehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success. Methods: From 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed. Results: Overall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P<0.001) and a positive history of periodontal disease doubled the failure risk (P=0.001). Conclusions: Summing up the long-term results of well over 10,000 implants at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna it can be concluded that there is only a limited number of patients that do not qualify for implant therapy and may thus not benefit from improved quality of life associated with fixed implant-retained prostheses.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.4
• /
• pp.210-217
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to analyze the current literatures and to assess outcomes of implant treatment in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Studies considered for inclusion were searched in Pub-Med. The literature search for studies published in English between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Our findings included literature assessing implant treatment in patients with a history of generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP). All studies were screened according to inclusion criteria. The outcome measures were survival rate of superstructures, marginal bone loss around implant and survival rate of implants. All studies were divided into two follow-up period: short term study (< 5 years) and long term study (${\geq}5$ years). RESULTS. Seven prospective studies were selected, including four short-term and three long-term studies. The survival rates of the superstructures were generally high in patients with GAP, i.e. 95.9-100%. Marginal bone loss around implant in patients with GAP as compared with implants in patients with chronic periodontitis or periodontally healthy patients was not significantly greater in short term studies but was significantly greater in long term studies. In short term studies, the survival rates of implants were between 97.4% and 100% in patients with GAP-associated tooth loss, except one study. The survival rates of implants were between 83.3% and 96% in patients with GAP in long term studies. CONCLUSION. Implant treatment in patients with GAP is not contraindicated provided that adequate infection control and an individualized maintenance program are assured.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.31-34
• /
• 2009

The survival rate of the OSSTEM GS II Implant 1 year after serving the prosthetic function in 2 domestic and foreign medical institutes was 97.57%; the success rate was 95.7%, and the average alveolar bone resorption was 0.24mm(n=389). In particular, the alveolar bone resorption occurred differently according to the placement location as well as whether or not the patient underwent bone grafting operation, but the implant s length and diameter did not have significant impact on alveolar bone resorption.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.230-241
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate failed implants and reimplantation survival and to identify the relative risk factors for implant re-failure. Methods: Ninety-one dental implants were extracted between 2006 and 2020 at the National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, including 56 implants in the maxilla and 35 implants in the mandible that were removed from 77 patients. Patient information (e.g., age, sex, and systemic diseases) and surgical information (e.g., the date of surgery and location of the implants and bone grafts) were recorded. If an implant prosthesis was used, prosthesis information was also recorded. Results: In total, 91 first-time failed dental implants in 77 patients were analyzed. Of them, 69 implants in 61 patients received reimplantation after failure. Sixteen patients (22 implants) refused reimplantation or received reimplantation at a different site. Eight of the 69 reimplants failed again. The 1-year survival rate of the 69 reimplants was 89.4%. Age at reimplantation and smoking significantly increased the risk of reimplantation failure. However, a history of taking anti-thrombotic agents showed a statistically significant negative association with reimplantation failure. Of the failed implants, 66% showed early failure and 34% showed late failure of the initial implantation. All 8 re-failed implants showed early failure. Only 3 of these 8 failed reimplants were re-tried and the second reimplants all survived. Conclusions: The total survival rate of implants, which included reimplants and second reimplants was 99.2%, although the survival rate of the initial implantations was 96.3%. Previous failure did not affect the success of the next trial. Reimplantation failure was more strongly affected by patient factors than by implant factors. Therefore, each patient's specific factors need to be meticulously controlled to achieve successful reimplantation.