• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.825-838
• /
• 2007

Endosseous implants are used in the treatment of various types of tooth loss, and numerous long-term studies have demonstrated the excellent reliability of this method of treatment. However, the increase of implant failure are associated with inadequate quality and/or height of bone. At the end of the 1980s, Wide(>3.75mm) implants were initially used for managing these difficult bone situations. The recommended indications for its use included poor bone quality, inadequate bone height. immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets, and immediate replacement of failed implants. At the 2000s, wider implants(6.0mm and 6.5mm) were used in a few studies. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in recent years, there is still a controversy on this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the survival rate of wide implants($6.0{\sim}8.0mm$) in molar regions, evaluating the clinical outcome. In this study, 1135 RBM surfaced wide implants($Rescue^{TM}$, MEGAZEN Co., Korea/595 maxillary, 540 mandibular) were placed in 650 patients(403 male, 247 female/age mean: $51.2{\pm}11.1$ years, range 20 to 83 years). Of the total, 68.3% were used to treat fully or partially edentulous situations, including single-tooth losses and 31.7% were placed immediately after teeth extraction or removal of failed implants, of which all were in the molar regions. Implant diameter and length ranged from 6.0 to 8.0mm and from 5.0 to 10.0mm respectively. The implants were followed for up to 42 months (mean: $14.6{\pm}9.5$ months). Of 1135 placed implants, 58 implants were lost. Among them, 53 implants were lost within 12 months after implant placement. The survival rate was 93.6% in the maxilla and 96.3% in the mandible, yielding an overall survival rate of 94.9%, for up to 42 months. As the result of Cox regression model, prosthetic type, sinus graft, and patient gender have an statistical significance on the implant survival rate in this study. This study suggests that the use of wide implants($6.0{\sim}8.0mm$) would provide a predictable treatment alternative in posterior areas.

• IMMUNE NETWORK
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.38.1-38.8
• /
• 2021

Recently, a new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (B.1.1.529) Omicron variant originated from South Africa in the middle of November 2021. SARS-CoV-2 is also called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19. Several studies already suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant would be the fastest transmissible variant compared to the previous 10 SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, interest, and alert. Few clinical studies reported the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant but there is insufficient time to perform actual experiments to prove it, since the spread is so fast. We analyzed the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, which revealed a very high rate of mutation at amino acid residues that interact with angiostatin-converting enzyme 2. The mutation rate of COVID-19 is faster than what we prepared vaccine program, antibody therapy, lockdown, and quarantine against COVID-19 so far. Thus, it is necessary to find better strategies to overcome the current crisis of COVID-19 pandemic.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.180-186
• /
• 2008

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the effect of the implant recipient site preparation methods on primary stability of implants with the instruments of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ in the iliac bone of cadaver. Methods and materials: The 8 iliac bones in 4 cadavers and implants treated with resorbable blasting media (RBM) were used. $Periotest^{(R)}$ (Simens AG, Germany) and $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden) were used to measure primary stability of implants. Implants were inserted into the iliac crest of the cadaver. In control group, the recipient site was prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendation: 1.8 mm guide drill, 2.0 mm initial drill, 2.7 mm pilot drill, 2.7 mm twist drill, 3.0 mm twist drill, 3.3 mm pilot drill, 3.3 mm twist drill, and 3.3 mm countersink drill as well as tapping drill were used in order. In the group 1, implant recipient sites were prepared by sequentially drilling from 1.8 mm guide drill to 3.0 mm twist drill and then inserted implants without countersinking and tapping. In the group 2, implant recipient sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill and then inserted implants without tapping. In the group 3, the sites were prepared to 3.0 mm twist drill and countersink drill as well as tapping drill. In the group 4, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill. In the group 5, the sites were prepared to 3.3 mm twist drill and countersink drill. A total of 60 implants were placed (n=10). The stability was measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally and buccolingually. To compare the mean stability of each group statistically, One-way ANOVA was used and correlation of instrument were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. The results obtained were as follows; 1. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ buccolingually showed the highest, and there are significant difference statistically between control group and experimental group 1,2,4 in each instruments respectively (p<0.05). 2. The stability of group 1 measured using $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ mesiodistally showed the highest. There are significant difference statistically between control group and all experimental groups in $Osstell^{TM}$, and between control group and experimental group 1,2,3,4 (p<0.05). 3. There are high correlation between the measurements of $Osstell^{TM}$ and $Periotest^{(R)}$ (p<0.05). Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary stability of implant can be obtained by the recipient sites preparation with smaller diameter drill than that of implant or minimal drilling.