• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.577-588
• /
• 2002

Osseointegrated implants have been established as the standard treatment modality for full/partial edentulous patients since the 1960's, and the long term results for full edentulous patients have proven to be successful. Based on these results osseointegrated implants are now widely used for partial edentulous patients. There has been an increased interest towards the efficacy of wide implants, despite many reports mentioning the lower success rate of wide implants compared to regular implants. Recently, mandibular molar area defects are commonly restored using 2 wide implants, but it is not determined whether which treatment modality-3 regular implants or 2 wide implants-shows superior success rate. In this study, 2 wide implants and 3 regular implants used for the restoration of mandibular molar area are used to compare the survival rate of 1-4 years, and to analyze and compare the failure factors. The following conclusions could be drawn from this study. 1. Wide implants and regular implants showed 94.5% and 97,6% of survival rate respectively. After prosthodontic work, the survival rate was 100% and 98.1% for wide implants and regular implants respectively. 2. 5 failed implants have been removed. 2 wide implants and 1 regular implant have been removed due to failure of osseointegration. 1 wide implant was removed due to abscess formation caused by over-heating, and 1 regular implant was removed due to mechanical failure caused by over-loading within the first year of function. 3. No statistically significant difference was observed with respect to the amount of marginal bone loss of wide and regular implants.(P>0.05) In conclusion, restoration of the mandibular molar area using 3 regular implants was found to be a good treatment modality, and 2 wide implants could he considered a good treatment modality when success factors are taken into account.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional abilities of the low bulb obturators with those of high bulb obturators in terms of patients' evaluation. Material and methods: This study included 11 maxillectomy patients who underwent postoperative prosthodontic rehabilitations. Two obturators of the same design except for different bulb heights, were fabricated for each of the maxillectomy patient. After two months of alternate use, the functions of the obturators were measured by investigating the patients' subjective evaluations in terms of convenience, speech, nasality, leakage, and mastication and identifying their preferred prostheses. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used as a statistical method (P < .05). Results: There were no significant differences in patient evaluations of low and high bulb obturators (P >.05). And patients' preferences varied. Conclusion: In extreme situation such as in mouth opening limitation, the use of low bulb obturators can be recommended and result in comparable speech function to that of obturators with high lateral walls.