It has been approximately 40 years since $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ first introduced osseo-integration for implants in the early 1960s. Unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. Thus, the awareness of implant tre...
It has been approximately 40 years since $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ first introduced osseo-integration for implants in the early 1960s. Unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. Thus, the awareness of implant treatment has grown rapidly among dentists and patients alike in Korea, as it becomes a widely accepted treatment. The following results on patients type and implant distribution were compiled from 1814 implant cases of 640 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Y University Hospital during 1992 to 2001. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 40,50s accounting for 49% of patients and 56% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 59% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(21%), Mx anterior area(l4%) and Mn anterior area 2%. 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 98% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 2% 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. Compared to women, men are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease. Also, older people are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease rather than dental caries. 5. The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 52% for type III, followed by 23% for type II, 20% for type IV and 0% for type I. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type II, followed by 37% for type III, 7% for type IV and 4% for type I. 6. The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 49% for type C, followed by 34% for type B, 14% for type D, 3% for type A, and 0% for type E. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type B, followed by 35% for type C, 6% for type D, 3% for type A and 0% for type E. 7. The majority of implants were those of 10-14mm in length (80%) and regular diameter in width (79%). The results provided us with basic data on patient type, implant distribution, bone condition, etc. We wish that our results coupled with other research data helps assist in the further study for better implant success/survival rates, etc.
It has been approximately 40 years since $Br{{\aa}}nemark$ first introduced osseo-integration for implants in the early 1960s. Unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. Thus, the awareness of implant treatment has grown rapidly among dentists and patients alike in Korea, as it becomes a widely accepted treatment. The following results on patients type and implant distribution were compiled from 1814 implant cases of 640 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Y University Hospital during 1992 to 2001. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 40,50s accounting for 49% of patients and 56% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 59% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(21%), Mx anterior area(l4%) and Mn anterior area 2%. 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 98% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 2% 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. Compared to women, men are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease. Also, older people are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease rather than dental caries. 5. The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 52% for type III, followed by 23% for type II, 20% for type IV and 0% for type I. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type II, followed by 37% for type III, 7% for type IV and 4% for type I. 6. The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 49% for type C, followed by 34% for type B, 14% for type D, 3% for type A, and 0% for type E. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type B, followed by 35% for type C, 6% for type D, 3% for type A and 0% for type E. 7. The majority of implants were those of 10-14mm in length (80%) and regular diameter in width (79%). The results provided us with basic data on patient type, implant distribution, bone condition, etc. We wish that our results coupled with other research data helps assist in the further study for better implant success/survival rates, etc.
Marcus S.E., Drury J.F., Brown L.S. : Tooth retention and tooth loss in the permanent dentition of adults: United States, 1988-1991. J. Dent. Res., 75: 684-695, Feb 1996
Waerhaug J. : Periodontology and partial prosthesis. Int. Dent. J., 18(1): 101-107, 1968
Carlsson G., Persson G. : Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing dentures : A longitudinal clinical and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years, Odont, Revy, 18: 27-54, 1967
Pietrokovski, J. : The bony residual ridge in man. J. Prosthet, Dent., 34: 456-462, 1975
Carr A., Laney W.R. : Maximum occlusal force levels in patients with osseointegrated oral implant prosthesis and patient with complete dentures. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants., 2: 101-110, 1987
Wetherell J., Smales R. : Partial dentures failure: A long-term clinical survey. J. Dent. Res., 8: 333-340, 1980
Branernark P.I., Breine U., Adel R., Hansson B.O., Lindstrom J. & Olsson A. : Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prosthesis, I. Experimental studies. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery., 3: 81-100, 1969
Bruno C., Hugo D., Bruyn, : Comparison of Branernark fixture integration and short-term survival using one-stage or two-stage surgery in completely and partially edentulous mandibles Clin. Oral. Implants. Res., 9: 131-175, 1998
Lekholm U, : Survival of the Branemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: A 10 year prospective multicenter study. Int. J. Oral, Maxillofac. Implants., 14: 639-645, 1999
Lindh T., Gunne J., Tillberg A., Molin M. : A meta-analysis of implants in partial edentulism. Clin, Oral. Implants. Res,, 9:80-90, 1998
Ericsson I., Nilson H., Lindh T., Nilner K., Randow K. : Immediate functional loading of Branemark single tooth implants. An 18 months' clinical pilot follow-up study, Clin, Oral. Implants. Res" 11: 26-33, 2000
Henry P.H., Laney W.R., Jemt T. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement, a prospective 5 years multicenter study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants., 11: 450-455, 1996
Schnitman et al : Ten-year results for Branemark implants immediately loaded with fixed prosthesis implant placement. Int, J. Oral. Maxillofac, Implants., 12: 495-503, 1997
한창식, 허남기, 김연미 최신 치과임플란트., 지성출판사. 2001
Atwood D.A. : Postextraction changes in the adult mandible as illustrated by microradiographs of midsagital sections and serial cephalometric roentgenograms. J. Prosthet, Dent., 13: 810-824, 1963
Lekholm U., Zarb G. : Patient selection and preparation. In Branemark P.I., editor: Tissue integrated prostheses : Osseointegration in clinical dentistry, Chicago, Quintensence., 199-209, 1985
Minsk L., Polson A., Weisgold A. : Outcome failures of endosseous implant from a clinical training center. Compendium., 17(9): 848-859, 1996
Tallgren A. : The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers. A mixed longitudinal study covering 25 years. J. Prosthet. Dent., 27: 120-132, 1972
Friberd B., Jemt T., Lekholm U. : Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Branemark dental implants. A study from stage 1 surgery to the connections of complete prostheses. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants,, 6: 132-146, 1991
Jaffin R.A., Berman C.L. : The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone : A 5-year analysis, J. Periodontol., 62(1): 2-4, 1991
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.