PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Statement of problem
The number of edentulous patients is increasing due to an aging society, which leads to increased demands and interests on implant restorations. Implant restorations are an effective treatment method for both complete and partially edentulous patients, and the success rate has been reported to be high. But because of the increased use of implants in various situations have resulted in frequent reports of failures on implant restorations. Various efforts to overcome these failures have been made.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to investigate the statistic survival rate of dental implants on patients who were treated at Dankook University Dental Hospital during the past 10 years based on their charts.
Materials and methods
The research was made for two different periods of time; The first investigation was for patients from August, 1998 to August, 2003 and the second was for patients from September, 2003 to April, 2007. Information on the number of implants placed, the location and distribution of implants, the duration between the first and second surgery, and the survival rate of implants were investigated from the patients’ charts.
Results
1. According to the first investigation, 1680 implants were placed on 612 patients and the second investigation showed 2438 implants placed on 933 patients. Thus a total of 4118 implants on 1545 patients. 2. Among the 1545 patients, 884 patients were male (57.2 %) and 661 patients were female (42.8%). Out of 4118 implants, 1739 implants (42.2%) were placed on the maxilla, and 2379 implants (57.8%) on the mandible. Implants were placed most frequently in the posterior region of the mandible. A total of 2043 implants (53.2%) were placed in this region. 3. According to the first investigation, 57 out of 1680, implants failed, while from the second investigation, 17 out of 2438 implants were reported as failure. In total, 74 implants failed, which results in a 98.2% survival rate. 4. The average duration between the first and the second surgeries in maxillas decreased from 7.4 months to 6.8 months. The duration also decreased from 5.6 months to 5.0 months in mandibles.
Conclusion
As shown in the results, the number of placed implants and the survival rate of implants were higher in the second investigation than that of the first investigation. And the time spent after the first surgery to the second surgery was less in the second investigation. Consequently, it can be presumed that the demand and consumption of dental implants as well as the survival rate will increase in the future.
REFERENCES
1.Albrektsson T., Zarb G., Worthington P., Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986. 1:11–25.
2.Zarb GA., Albrektsson T. Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:641.
3.Rosenberg ES., Cho SC., Elian N., Jalbout ZN., Froum S., Evian CI. A comparison of characteristics of implant failure and survival in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004. 19:873–9.
4.Ha ¨mmerle CH., Jung RE., Feloutzis A. A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2002. 29:226–31.
5.Bahat O. Bra � nemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5 to 12 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000. 15:646–53.
6.Kim JS., Chang HH., Chang CH., Rhyu SH., Kang JH. Preprosthetic Stage Dental Implant Failure. J Kor Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001. 27:178–83.
7.Drago CJ., O' Connor CG. A clinical report on the 18-month cumulative survival rates of implants and implant prostheses with an internal connection implant system. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2006. 27:266–71.
8.Schmitt A., Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Prosthodont. 1993. 6:197–202.
9.Lekholm U., Gunne J., Henry P., Higuchi K., Linde ′n U., Bergstro ¨m C., van Steenberghe D. Survival of the Bra � nemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: a 10-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999. 14:639–45.
10.Quirynen M., Listgarten MA. Distribution of bacterial mor-photypes around natural teeth and titanium implants ad modum Bra � nemark. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990. 1:8–12.
11.Nevins M., Langer B. The successful use of osseointegrated implants for the treatment of the recalcitrant periodontal patient. J Periodontol. 1995. 66:150–7.
12.Buser D., Mericske-Stern R., Bernard JP., Behneke A., Behneke N., Hirt HP., Belser UC., Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multicenter study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:161–72.
Table I.
The number of treated patient and inserted implants.
| Patient Number | Fixture Number | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research∗ | 612 | 1680 |
| 2nd research∗∗ | 933 | 2438 |
| Total | 1545 | 4118 |
Table II.
The ratio of male and female treated with dental implants
| Male | Female | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 343 (56%) | 269 (44%) |
| 2nd research | 541 (58%) | 392 (42%) |
| Total | 884 (57%) | 661 (43%) |
Table III.
The ratio of the maxillary and mandibular implants
Table IV.
The ratio of the completely and partially edentulous patients treated with dental implants
| Edentulous ridge | Partial edentulous ridge | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 122 | 1558 |
| 2nd research | 157 | 2281 |
| Total | 279 | 3839 |
Table V.
The ratio of implants placed at right and left side of alveolar ridge
| Left | Right | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 752 (48%) | 806 (52%) |
| 2nd research | 1137 (50%) | 1144 (50%) |
| Total | 1889 (49%) | 1950 (51%) |
Table VI.
The ratio of implanted site of partially edentulous patients
Table VII.
The ratio of implants with screw and cylinder shape
| Screw type | Cylinder type | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 1656 (99%) | 24 (1%) |
| 2nd research | 2405 (99%) | 33 (1%) |
| Total | 4061 (99%) | 57 (1%) |
Table VIII.
The healing period between the 1st and 2nd surgery
| Maxilla | Mandible (Month) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 7.4 | 5.6 |
| 2nd research | 6.8 | 5.0 |
| Total | 7.1 | 5.3 |
Table IX.
Survival rate of dental implants classified by fixture design
| Screw type | Cylinder type | |
|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 1600 / 1656 (96.6%) | 23 / 24 (95.8%) |
| 2nd research | 2390 / 2405 (99.3%) | 31 / 33 (93.3%) |
| Total | 3990 /4 061 (98.3%) | 54 / 57 (94.7%) |
Table X.
Survival rate of dental implants treated at Dankook University Dental Hospital
| Maxilla | Mandible | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st research | 626 / 644 (97.2%) | 997 / 1036 (96.2%) | 1623 / 1680 (96.6%) |
| 2nd research | 1082 / 1095 (98.8%)∗ | 1339 / 1343 (99.7%)∗ | 2421 / 2438 (99.3%)∗ |
| Total | 1708 / 1739 (98.2%) | 2336 / 2379 (98.2%) | 4044 / 4118 (98.2%) |
XML Download