• 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.

• 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.33 no.3
• /
• pp.383-393
• /
• 2003

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the amount of marginal bone loss between upper anterior area and upper posterior area with 71 upper single-tooth restorations on 2 stage machined $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ implants since Jan 1995. The second aim was to compare the bone defect group which had dehiscence and fenetration and the others in the upper anterior region. The results were as follows. 1. The most frequent reason of missing tooth in the upper anterior region was trauma by 61%. While upper posterior region showed various reasons such as congenital missing, advanced periodontitis, trauma. 2. Peri-implantitis with fistula occurred 1 of 41 implants in the upper anterior group in 1 year after loading and 2 of 32 implants in the upper posterior group failed before loading. The 1 year success rate of upper anterior group was 97.56 %, and 93.75 % for upper posterior group. 3. The mean marginal bone loss in the upper anterior group was 0.44${\pm}$0.25 mm, while 0.57${\pm}$0.32 mm in the upper posterior group. There was statistically significant difference in the amount of mean marginal bone loss (P${\pm}$0.10 mm at one year, and 0.48${\pm}$0.26 mm for the control group. No statistically significant difference of mean marginal bone loss was showen between bone defect group and the others at implantation. According to the results, the upper anterior region showed less marginal bone loss than the upper posterior region. In case of missing single upper tooth, careful consideration on recipient residual ridge to determine proper implant diameter and length, sufficient healing time, proper loading would lead to implant success. Single tooth implants in the maxilla seemed to be an alternative to fixed partial dentures without damage to adjacent teeth.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.423-430
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. To evaluate the cumulative survival rate (CSR) and mechanical complications of single-tooth $Ankylos^{(R)}$ implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This was a retrospective clinical study that analyzed 450 single $Ankylos^{(R)}$ implants installed in 275 patients between December 2005 and December 2012. The main outcomes were survival results CSR and implant failure) and mechanical complications (screw loosening, fracture, and cumulative fracture rate [CFR]). The main outcomes were analyzed according to age, sex, implant length or diameter, bone graft, arch, and position. RESULTS. The 8-year CSR was 96.9%. Thirteen (2.9%) implants failed because of early osseointegration failure in 3, marginal bone loss in 6, and abutment fracture in 4. Screw loosening occurred in 10 implants (2.2%), and 10 abutment fractures occurred. All abutment fractures were located in the neck, and concurrent screw fractures were observed. The CSR and rate of screw loosening did not differ significantly according to factors. The CFR was higher in middle-aged patients (5.3% vs 0.0% in younger and older patients); for teeth in a molar position (5.8% vs 0.0% for premolar or 1.1% for anterior position); and for larger-diameter implants (4.5% for 4.5 mm and 6.7% for 5.5 mm diameter vs 0.5% for 3.5 mm diameter) (all P<.05). CONCLUSION. The $Ankylos^{(R)}$ implant is suitable for single-tooth restoration in Koreans. However, relatively frequent abutment fractures (2.2%) were observed and some fractures resulted in implant failures. Middle-aged patients, the molar position, and a large implant diameter were associated with a high incidence of abutment fracture.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.54-57
• /
• 2010

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal and prosthodontic complications of multiple freestanding implants in the posterior jaws for up to 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eight patients received 20 implants posterior to canines. Two or more implants were consecutively inserted to each patient. Single crowns were delivered onto the implants. Marginal bone loss, implant mobility, probing depth, and screw loosening were examined to evaluate the clinical success of such restorations for maximum 1 year of functional loading. RESULTS. All the implants performed well during the observation period. Neither periodontal nor prosthodontic complications were found except a slight porcelain chipping. While the marginal bone level was on average 0.09 mm lower around the implant after 6 months of loading, it was 0.15 mm higher after 1 year. CONCLUSION. Within the limits of this investigation, separate single-tooth implant restorations to replace consecutive missing teeth may clinically function well in the posterior jaw.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.925-938
• /
• 2006

The aim of this study was to systematically investigate the complications of single implant-supported restorations followed more than 5-year. Thirty-five studies were selected for the systematic review. A total of 3932 single implants were included at the beginning of studies. Thirty-one implants were removed before loading and 91 implants after loading. The overall implant loss rate was 3.1 %. Implant losses were concentrated on the period between loading and 2-year follow-up, and, after a stable period, increased after 5-year follow-up. The mean marginal bone loss at single-tooth implants was well within 0.2 mm/year, i.e., acceptable annual bone loss by the implant success criteria. However, considerable amounts of single implants suffered a marginal bone loss at implant more than 0.2 mm/year. Fistula was a frequent biological complication in the early studies. The most frequent technical problem was a screw loosening, but its frequency was reduced after the use of a gold screw and torque controller. Within the limits of this study, the complications of single implants might be underestimated due to the lack of information about the biological and technical complications available in the relevant literature.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.267-277
• /
• 2009

Recently implant supported single crown is the popular treatment option to replace a single missing tooth. The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze and evaluate the survival of implants with the $TiUnite^{TM}$ surface for single tooth replacement. From September 2002 to December 2006, 269 TiUniteTM surfaced implants were used in single tooth replacements at the Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center. Twenty one cases were excluded because of neighbor implants, missing records & short follow up period. Among 248 implants, the 129 implants (52.0%) were inserted in the maxilla and 119 (48.0%) in the mandible. One hundred implants placement (40.3%) were combined with guided bone regeneration, and 36 implants placement (14.5%) were combined with sinus bone augmentation. Mean observation period was $26.0{\pm}11.8$ months after implant placement. Twelve implants were recorded as failures, rendering a single implant survival rate of 95.2% over the observation period. Among failed 12 implants, 10 implants placed in the maxilla. The survival rate in the maxilla was 92.2% and in the mandible was 98.3%. The use of $TiUnite^{TM}$ surfaced single implant placement showed high survival rate for short time period.

• 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.37 no.4
• /
• pp.705-718
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate 6 years cumulative survival rate (CSR, %) of mandibular posterior single tooth implants replaced with $Br{\aa}nemark$ $TiUnite^{(R)}$ implant system. The findings from this study were as followed ; 1. The 112 (111 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular posterior region were successful except 4 cases and showed 96.42% CSR. 2. The 55 (55 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular first molar region were successful except 2 cases and showed 96.36% survival rate. And, among the 57 (56 persons) single implants replacing the mandibular second molar. 2. failed showing 96.49% survival rate. There was no significant statistical difference. 3. Among the total 112 implants, 5.0mm wide diameter implants were placed in 96 cases(85.7%) showing 96.9% survival rate. 4.0mm standard diameter implants were placed in 16 cases showing 93.8% survival rate. There was no significant statistical difference. 4. Long implants above 10.0mm length were placed 103 cases(91.0%) and showed 96.1% survival rate. Short implants within 8.5mm length were placed 9 cases and showed 100% survival rate. There was no significant statistical difference. 5. 37 implants placed in type I, II bone quality were showed higher survival rate(100%) than that of 52 implants placed in type III, IV bone quality(92.3%). But, there was no significant statistical difference. In conclusion, $Br{\aa}nemark$ $TiUnite^{(R)}$ implant showed successful results when replacing manbibular single molar.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.188-193
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the influence exerted by the observer's dental specialization and compare patients' opinion with observers' opinion of the esthetics of maxillary single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone. Methods: Forty-one adult patients, who were treated with a single implant in the esthetic zone, were enrolled in this study. Eight observers (2 periodontists, 2 prosthodontists, 2 orthodontists and 2 senior dental students) applied the pink esthetic score (PES)/white esthetic score (WES) to 41 implant-supported single restorations twice with an interval of 4 weeks. We used a visual analog scale (VAS) to assess the patient's satisfaction with the treatment outcome from an esthetic point of view. Results: In the PES/WES, very good and moderate intraobserver agreements were noted between the first and second rating. The mean total PES/WES was $11.19{\pm}3.59$. The mean PES was $5.17{\pm}2.29$ and mean WES was $6.02{\pm}1.96$. In the total PES/WES, the difference between the groups was not significant. However, in the WES, the difference between the groups was significant and prosthodontists were found to have assigned poorer ratings than the other groups. Periodontists gave higher ratings than prosthodontists and senior dental students. Orthodontists were clearly more critical than the other observers. The statistical analysis revealed statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth. However, the correlation between the total PES/WES and the VAS score for the first premolar was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The PES/WES is an objective tool in rating the esthetics of implant supported single crowns and adjacent soft tissues. Orthodontists were the most critical observers, while periodontists were more generous than other observers. The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between patients' esthetic perception and dentists' perception of the anterior tooth.