• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.23 no.5
• /
• pp.406-414
• /
• 2001

In recent decade, there has been a very rapid development in technical possibilities to provide patients with maxillofacial prostheses. Dr. Brenemark first introduced possibility of use of maxillofacial interosseous implant in patients with ablative tumor surgery in 1979. He did introduce the new type of maxillofacial implants system which widen the fixture flange on top of the bone. The advantages of fixed prostheses with implants were well known to various ways, easy to attach, keep clean prostheses, and not to disturb recipient bed. But there are some problems to install implants on maxillofacial regions, because mostly facial bone has very thin cortical bone and poor bone quality. It needs more retention between implant and bone which overcome that fault with fixture flange. To make maxillofacial prostheses, it should be understood general procedure of maxillofacial laboratory work. Ear and midface maxillofacial fabrication which include nose and eye defects will be described step by step.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.101-112
• /
• 2004

Osseointegrated implnats have proven to be successful in both full and partial edentulous patients since the 1960s and recently have shown successful results when used to restore single tooth missing. However, in most studies reporting the success of single implants, single implants replacing anterior teeth are more frequently mentioned than posterior single implants. Moreover, in studies regarding posterior single implants, the replaced region seemed to be variable; the maxilla, mandible and areas from the first premolar to the second molar were mentioned. However, considering the difference in bone quality in the mandible and maxilla, and the increased occlusal force in the posterior region, the success rates in each region may be different. In this study, the cumulative success rates and amount of bone loss of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar, respectively, were compared and analyzed to come to the following conclusion. 1. The 20 (20 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular first molar region were all successful and showed a 100% 5 year cumulative success rate. Among the 27 (24 persons) single implants replacing the mandibular second molar, 8 failed (27.63%) showing a 5 year cumulative success rate of 70.37%. 2. Among the 8 failed implants, one showed symptoms of postoperative infection and one complained of parenthesia. 6 implants failed after functional loading; 5 showed mobility and one resulted in fixture fracture. 3. After the attachment of the prosthesis, there was no significant statistical difference regarding the marginal bone loss in group 1 and group 2 during the checkup period (P>0.05). In conclusion, restoration of the mandibular first molar using single implants was found to be an excellent treatment modality, and when replacing mandibular second molars with single implants, poor bone quality and risk of overloading must be considered.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.175-180
• /
• 2004

In this study, three treatment options to replace two posterior missing teeth were investigated using three dimensional finite element analysis: two wide(${\phi}5.0mm$) implants(the experimental model I), two standard(${\phi}3.75mm$) implants(the experimental model II), and three standard(${\phi}3.75mm$) implants(the experimental model III). Two kinds of load case were applied ; 1) perpendicular on occlusal surface(axial load), parallel on occlusal surface(lateral load). 2) perpendicular on occlusal surface(3mm lateral to central point). The results obtained from this study were as follows; value of Von-mises stress (equivalent stress) was smallest in the two wide implant among the three experimental models. It was reported that the diameter is the efficient factor than osseointegrated surface area.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.240-247
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss to the bone crest functionally loaded for up to eighteen months and also with regard to other variables of interest. Material and Methods: 135 endosseous implants(GS II, Osstem, South Korea) were placed in 35 patients. The design of GS II implant is straight with the microthread. Radiographic examinations were conducted at baseline (implant loading) and 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after loading. Marginal bone level measurement was made from the reference point to the lowest observed point of contact of the marginal bone with the fixture. The reference point of the fixture was the border between the blasted surface and machined surface of the fixture. Results: Implants were on function for a mean 12.7 months(range, 3?18 months). For the 56 maxillary and 79 mandibular implants, mean marginal bone loss was 0.68 mm and 0.70 mm. Implants placed maxillary posterior area displayed more crestal bone loss than the other position. The difference between mesial and distal bone levels was statistically significant (p<0.05) with respective means of 0.51 mm and 0.62 mm. Also, The difference between bone graft group and no-bone graft group was statistically significant(p<0.05) with respective means of 0.38 mm and 0.66 mm. But no statistically significant influence of sex, type of surgery(one or two stage surgery), the implant length was observed(p>0.05). Conclusion: This study indicates the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods.

• 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.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.144-149
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The aim of this case report is to present the successful clinical treatment of two cases of postoperative infection following maxillary sinus augmentation. Methods: In the two cases of postoperative infection, immediate total removal of the grafted material from the sinus was conducted to stop the spread of the infection, after which a high dose of antibiotics was administrated. Re-augmentation procedures were then conducted after the infection subsided. Results: No further complications occurred after sinus re-augmentation. The dental implants placed in the re-augmented sinus were clinically osseointegrated, and the implant-supported restorations in the two cases of postoperative infection have been functioning very well for over 2 years. Conclusions: In the case of infection of the grafted sinuses, it is necessary to completely remove the graft materials and then administer a high dose of antibiotics to treat the acute infection, after which sinus re-augmentation is suggested.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.43-48
• /
• 2003

During the past several years, significant advances have occurred in the utilization of osseointegrated implants for the treatment of partially edentulous patients. One of the biggest purposes for treating of these patients is the high demand for improved esthetics, especially in the anterior region. For this esthetics, the new trend in dental implants is the immediate placement and immediate superstructure fabrication. The refined surgical technique, the skillful soft tissue management, and the proper prosthetic coordination are the main factors to achieve natural looking of implant supported prosthesis. The customized provisional restoration and the customized impression coping are recommended for the optimal peri-implant soft tissue contour. The basic concept of Frialit 2 system was the immediate replacement of a tooth with root-analog fixture after extraction. This system guarantees an ideal result in function and esthetics. The ceramic abutment system offers improved quality in the respect of esthetics, fitness, translucency, and biocompatibility. In this clinical report, the final restoration made with IPS Empress 2 crown on the CeraBase abutmen of Frialit 2 system allowed the reproduction of the natural vitality of tooth and adjacent gingiva.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.38 no.6 s.373
• /
• pp.558-566
• /
• 2000

Osseointegrated dental implants have now become and accepted form of treatment for patients with a fully or partially missing dentition. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of AVANA implant-Korea. A total of 323 AVANA implants were placed at 9 centers in the edentulous and partially edentulous jaws of 88 consecutive patients ranging in age form 18 to 79 years. So we get the clinical results. 1. Both patients (94.4%) & doctors (94%) were satisfied with the results, in patient's aspect 'most satisfaction' case were more common(52%) 2. The length of fixture which was frequently used was 13mm (168/319,44.5%) followed by 15mm and 10mm, and 3.75mm width implant (239/319,74.9%) was the most popularly used. 3. Mandibutar posterior was the most common installation site (140/317.43%) 4. A mean implant survival rate was 96.2%. That showed little difference which reported other paper. Cause of failure consisted of inflammation $ infection-36%, fall of osseointegration-18%, paln during masticatory function-9%. improper prosthetic function $ procedure-9%. 5. The most popularly used types of abutment was the UCLA abutment(168/305,55.5%)

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.220-230
• /
• 1995

In this report, a case is presented in which resected mandible was reconstructed immediately with vascularized bone graft and adjunctive implantation of osseointegrated dental implants. The primary was central odontogenic myxoma of mandible extending from symphysis to the left condylar neck. The hemimandibulectomy defect was restored with free fibular flap. Three months after 1st surgery, the transplant received five $IMZ^{(R)}$ implants. The masticatory function was restored with the implant borne denture. The result including facial appearance was very satisfactory.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.6
• /
• pp.430-439
• /
• 2018

The treatment of craniofacial anomalies has been challenging as a result of technological shortcomings that could not provide a consistent protocol to perfectly restore patient-specific anatomy. In the past, wax-up and impression-based maneuvers were implemented to achieve this clinical end. However, with the advent of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology, a rapid and cost-effective workflow in prosthetic rehabilitation has taken the place of the outdated procedures. Because the use of implants is so profound in different facets of restorative dentistry, their placement for craniofacial prosthesis retention has also been widely popular and advantageous in a variety of clinical settings. This review aims to effectively describe the well-rounded and interdisciplinary practice of craniofacial prosthesis fabrication and retention by outlining fabrication, osseointegrated implant placement for prosthesis retention, a myriad of clinical examples in the craniofacial complex, and a glimpse of the future of bioengineering principles to restore bioactivity and physiology to the previously defected tissue.