• Implantology
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.196-209
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the cumulative survival rate of dental implants installed with guided bone regeneration (GBR), and also elucidate the factors related with the survival of dental implants. Material and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 148 dental implants installed in 76 patients by one specialist (Y.K.) at the Department of Periodontology and Implant Center, Seoul National University Dental Hospital from 2001 to 2010. The cumulative survival rates were obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method. The correlations between various factors and dental implant survival were analyzed by using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among 148 dental implants installed in 76 patients, 8 implants in 7 patients were lost and the cumulative survival rates up to 5-years and 10-years were 97% and 89%, respectively. Gender, smoking status and location of implant were significantly associated with the cumulative survival rate of implants (p < 0.05). Age, history of hypertension and diabetes were not significantly associated with the cumulative survival rate of implants (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The dental implants installed with guided bone regeneration is predictable technique according to the results of cumulative survival rate over 10 years.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.55 no.2
• /
• pp.116-127
• /
• 2017

Objectives : The aim of this study was to evaluate the cumulative survival rates of the implants placed into grafted sinus and determine the effect of age, gender, smoking, and systemic disease on the implant cumulative survival rates. Materials and Methods : The retrospective study was performed on 51 implants placed in 26 patients by one dentist at the Dental Implant Center, Seoul National University Dental Hospital in the years 2000-2010. The cumulative survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The differences within the factors were analyzed using log-rank test and the correlations between the factors and implant survival rates were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard model. Results : 1. Among the total of 51 implants placed in 26 patients, 7 implants failed and 44 implants remained stable. The 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year cumulative survival rates were 92%, 88%, and 85%, respectively. 2. Patients in their 50s and in their 70s showed statistically significant difference in the cumulative survival rates (P < 0.05). Gender and the existence of systemic disease did not show significant results. 3. In the implant treatment, smokers showed 7.5 times higher risk of implant failure than non-smokers (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Implants installed in combination with sinus elevation can be considered as a reliable treatment method.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.13 no.7
• /
• pp.3357-3360
• /
• 2012

Objective: This study was to present the survival of advanced cancer patients and explore the influence of various factors on survival time as well as survival rate. The results provide guidelines for clinical practice of cancer treatment. Methods: Follow-up of 674 advanced cancer patients was performed in a hospice. The median survival time and survival rate were calculated, and survival analysis was carried out. Results: The median survival time of all patients dying from cancer was 12.0 months and the average survival time was 25.1 months. The 1-year cumulative survival rate was $0.518{\pm}0.020$ and the 5-year cumulative survival rate was $0.088{\pm}0.012$. The following factors showed significant impacts on survival rate: gender, age, primary diagnosis, surgery and the time when pain appeared. Conclusions: The survival time of patients with advanced cancer was relatively short. Major approaches to extend the survival time include early detection, early diagnosis, effective surgical treatment, pain control, reasonable supply of nutrients and multiple interventions.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.891-900
• /
• 2006

Perforation of maxillary sinus is a common complication of implant placement in posterior maxilla. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognosis of sinus perforated implants placed in partially edentulous maxillae. Eighteen sinus perforated implants in 15 patients were examined for cumulative survival rate, radiographic preoperative bone level, and radiographic marginal bone level change. Twenty-two non-perforated implants in the same patients served as control. The results were as follows; 1. There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative survival rate between sinus perforated implants and non-perforated implants (P>0.05). 2. There was no statistically significant difference in the marginal bone level between sinus perforated implants and non-perforated implants (P>0.05). 3. There was no statistically significant difference in cumulative survival rate according to the preoperative bone level (P>0.05). These results suggests that perforation of maxillary sinus may not affect implant success in posterior maxillae.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.210-215
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the cumulative success rate, the implant survival rate, and the occurrence of biological complications in implants supporting full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations supported by upright and tilted implants. Methods: The clinical records and periapical radiographs of patients who attended follow-up visits were collected, and information was recorded regarding marginal bone loss resorption, the occurrence of peri-implant infectious diseases, and the implant survival rate. Implants were classified as successful or not successful according to two distinct classifications for implant success. Results: A total of 53 maxillary and mandibular restorations including 212 implants were analysed, of which 56 implants were studied over the full five-year follow-up period. After five years, the cumulative success rate was 76.04% according to the Misch classification and 56.34% according to the Albrektsson classification. The cumulative implant survival rate was 100%, although one implant was found to be affected by peri-implantitis at the second follow-up visit. Conclusions: The cumulative success rate of the implants dropped over time, corresponding to the progression of marginal bone resorption. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was very low, and the implant survival rate was not found to be related to the cumulative success rate.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.669-678
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate 2 years cumulative survival rate of implants on augmented sinus area using MBCP, mixture of MBCP and ICB, and mixture of MBCP and autogenous bone by means of clinical and radiologic methods. Materials and Methods: In a total of 37 patients, 41 maxillary sinuses were augmented and 89 implant fixtures were installed simultaneously or after a regular healing period. The patients were divided in 3 groups: MBCP only, MBCP combined with ICB, MBCP combined with autogenous bone. After delivery of prosthesis, along 2 years of observation period, all implants were evaluated clinically and radiologically. And the results were as follows. Results: The results of this study were as follows. 1. A 2 year cumulative survival rate of implants placed with sinus augmentation procedure using MBCP was 97.75%. 2. Survival rate of implants using MBCP only was 97.62%, MBCP and ICB was 100%, MBCP and autogenous bone was 95%. There was no statistically significant difference between 3 groups. 3. Only 2 of 89 implants were lost before delivery of prosthesis, so it can be regarded as an early failure. And both were successfully restored by wider implants. Conclusion: It can be suggested that MBCP may have predictable result when used as a grafting material of sinus floor augmentation whether combined with other graft(ICB, autogenous bone) or not. And the diameter, length, location of implants did not have a significant effect on 2 year cumulative survival rate.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.413-423
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The presented study aims to evaluate the effects of osteoporosis on dental implants by analyzing a 12-year cumulative survival rate of implants placed in patients with osteoporosis. Methods: 37 patients with history of osteoporosis were selected from a pool of dental implant patients treated at the Department of Periodontology in Yonsei University Hospital between 1993 and 2007. The cumulative survival rate is quantified using data collected from 164 placed implants in the selected 37 patients. Results: 3 out of the 164 implants failed and the cumulative survival rate was observed at 95.1%. The survival rates of the implants according to patients' age were 97.41% (<60) and 100% ($60\leq$). The lower survival rate was directly proportional to younger age, and this relationship is statistically significant (P<0.05). The survival rates of implants according to diagnostic criteria were 95.45% (osteopenia) and 98.59% (osteoporosis; 2 out of 142 implants placed in osteoporosis patients failed). The difference in the two survival rates is statistically significant (P<0.05). The survival rates according to the region of implants do not have statistically significant difference. The survival rates according to the different length and diameter of the implants do not have statistically significant difference. The survival rates of implants accompanied and not accompanied by bone augmentation were 92.11% and 100%, respectively. The difference in the two survival rates is statistically significant (P<0.05). The survival rates of implants placed in patients with and without history of medication for osteoporosis treatment are 96.67% and 99.04%, respectively. The difference in the two survival rates is statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions: A high cumulative survival rate of dental implants, similar to one found in non-osteoporosis patients, is observed in osteoporosis patients, indicating the possibility that placing dental implants on patients with osteoporosis can be considered with high treatment predictability.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.68-75
• /
• 2014

Objectives: This study was performed to analyze the cumulative survival rate of Osstem implants (Osstem Implant Co., Ltd.) over a seven-year period. Materials and Methods: A total of 105 patients who had 467 Osstem implants that were placed at the Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (Seongnam, Korea) from June 2003 through December 2005 were analyzed. The life table method and a cross-tubulation analysis, log rank test were used to evaluate the survival curve and the influence that the prognostic factors. The prognostic factors, i.e., age and gender of patients, diameter and length, type of implants, bone graft history and loading time were determined with a Cox proportional hazard model based on logistic regression analysis. Results: The seven-year cumulative survival rate of Osstem implants was 95.37%. The Cox proportional hazard model revealed that the following factors had a significant influence on survival rate; increased diameter, reduced prosthetic loading period and performance of bone grafting. Conclusion: The osstem implants showed satisfactory results over the seven-year study period.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.39 no.sup2
• /
• pp.205-212
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the survival rate of oxidized titanium implants and sandblasted large-grit acid etched implants in soft bone. Methods: 201 oxidized titanium implants were inserted in 84 patients between May 1999 and May 2004. 120 sandblasted large-grit acid etched implants were inserted in 74 patients between December 2000 and May 2004. The patients were followed-up 0${\sim}$5 years in ITI group or 0${\sim}$6 years in BRA group, respectively. The following information was collected from the patient records: age, gender, systemic disease, implant type, number, length and diameter of the implants, their location in the jaws, bone quantity, the number of failed implants, the causes of failure, and advanced surgery for bone augmentation. Results: In the oxidized titanium implants, 8 implants showed early failure, and 1 implant showed late failure, respectively. The cumulative survival rate was 95.48%. In the sandblasted large-grit acid etched implants, 1 implant showed late failure and cumulative survival rate was 99.10%. The cumulative survival rate and the survival rates in the case of the advanced procedure during the implant placement were not significantly different in both groups. Conclusions: Oxidized titanium implants and sandblasted large-grit acid etched implants can be used successfully in soft bone regardless of the surgical methods used during the implant placement. (J Korean Acad Periodontol 2009;39:205-212)

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.413-428
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Given the predictability of dental implant procedure from the studies of successful osseointegration, implant dentistry is often the treatment of choice to replace missing teeth in edentulous patient instead of the fixed prosthesis or removable denture. The $Renova^{(R)}$ dental implant has a RBM(Resorbable Blast Media) surface, internal hex prosthetic connection and a tapered design. At this study gives the analysis of the implant and the short term survival rate of the implant. Material and Methods: In this study, a multilateral analysis was performed on the subjects undergoing placement with $Renova^{(R)}$ implant between August 2006 and February 2008 in Yonsei University dental hospital. 96 implants were placed in 56 patients and they were surveyed for cumulative survival rate. Among them 78 implants in 44 patients were surveyed for the rest analyses. Result: 1. The cumulative survival rate was 96.88% of 96 implants in 56 patients. 2. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.803mm and the marginal bone loss in augmentation group has higher value than the marginal bone loss in non augmentation group. 3. The health scale for the implants were 87% in success group, 9% in satisfactory survival group, 1% in compromised survival group, and 3% in failure group. 4. Two implants placed in poor bone posterior area by 2-stage failed during prosthetic procedure. Conclusion: $Renova^{(R)}$ dental implant showed high cumulative survival rate in installation on partial edentulous ridge and could be a predictable implant system.