Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡°ú ÀÓÇöõÆ® ȯÀÚÀÇ Åë°è ºÐ¼®¿¡ °üÇÑ ÈÄÇâÀû ¿¬±¸

A retrospective statistical analysis of dental implants

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 47±Ç 3È£ p.266 ~ 272
Á¶ÃáÀÏ, Á¶ÀÎÈ£, ¹®Àº¼ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¶ÃáÀÏ ( Zhao Chun-Ri ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Á¶ÀÎÈ£ ( Cho In-Ho ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
¹®Àº¼ö ( Moon Eun-Soo ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: Àü ¼¼°èÀûÀÎ °í·ÉÈ­ Ãß¼¼¿¡ µû¶ó ¹«Ä¡¾Ç ȯÀÚµéÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏ°í À̵éÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® º¸Ã¶ ¼öº¹¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼ö¿ä¿Í °ü½ÉÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ºÎºÐ ¹«Ä¡¾Ç ¶Ç´Â ¿ÏÀü ¹«Ä¡¾Ç¿¡¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ º¸Ã¶ Ä¡·á´Â È¿°úÀûÀÌ¸ç ±× ¼º°øÀ² ¶ÇÇÑ ³ô°Ô º¸°íµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ ÀÓÇöõÆ® »ç¿ë ¹üÀ§°¡ ´Ù¾çÇØÁü¿¡ µû¶ó ¿©·¯ °¡Áö ½ÇÆа¡ º¸°íµÇ°í ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ½ÇÆи¦ ÁÙÀ̱â À§ÇÑ ¹æ¹ýµéÀÌ ¿¬±¸, °³¹ßµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ÀÓÇöõÆ® »ýÁ¸À²À» Á¶»çÇÏ°í, À̸¦ Åä´ë·Î ÇâÈÄ ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¿¹ÃøÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù.

¿¬±¸¹æ¹ý: 1998³â 8¿ùºÎÅÍ 2003³â 8¿ù±îÁö, 2003³â 9¿ùºÎÅÍ 2007³â 4¿ù±îÁö µÎ Â÷·Ê·Î ³ª´©¾î Áø·á±â·ÏºÎ Á¶»ç¸¦ ÅëÇØ ÃÖ±Ù 10³â µ¿¾È ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°úº´¿ø¿¡¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ Ä¡·á¹ÞÀº ȯÀÚµéÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á °ú: Áø·á±â·ÏºÎ Á¶»ç¸¦ ÅëÇØ ½Ä¸³µÈ ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¼ö, ÀÓÇöõÆ® À§Ä¡ ¹× ºÐÆ÷, 1Â÷¼ö¼úÈĺÎÅÍ2Â÷ ¼ö¼ú±îÁöÀÇ ±â°£, »ýÁ¸À² µîÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù. 1. 1Â÷ Á¶»ç¿¡¼­ 612¸í ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô 1680°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ ½Ä¸³µÇ°í, 2Â÷ Á¶»ç¿¡¼­´Â 933¸í ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô 2438°³°¡ ½Ä¸³µÇ¾î ÃÑ 1545¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡°Ô 4118°³ ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ ½Ä¸³µÇ¾ú´Ù. 2. ÃÑ 1545¸í ȯÀÚÀÇ ¼ººñ´Â ³²¼ºÀÌ 57.2% (884¸í), ¿©¼ºÀÌ 42.8% (661¸í)¿´°í, ÃÑ 4118°³ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡¼­ »ó¾Ç¿¡ 1739°³ (42.2%), ÇϾǿ¡ 2379°³ (57.8%)°¡ ½Ä¸³µÇ
¾úÀ¸¸ç ÇÏ¾Ç ±¸Ä¡ºÎ¿¡ 2043°³ (53.2%)°¡ ½Ä¸³µÇ¾î Á¦ÀÏ ³ôÀº ºñÀ²À» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù. 3. 1Â÷ Á¶»ç¿¡¼­´Â ÃÑ 1680°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® Áß 57°³°¡ ½ÇÆÐÇÏ¿´°í 2Â÷ Á¶»ç¿¡¼­´Â 2438°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® Áß 17°³°¡ ½ÇÆÐÇÏ¿© ÃÑ 4118°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® Áß 74°³°¡ ½ÇÆÐÇÏ¿© 98.2%ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´´Ù. 4. 1Â÷ ¼ö¼ú ÀÌÈÄ 2Â÷ ¼ö¼úÀÌ ½ÃÇàµÇ±â±îÁöÀÇ ±â°£Àº »ó¾Ç¿¡¼­ Æò±Õ 7.4°³¿ù¿¡¼­ 6.8°³¿ù·Î, ÇϾǿ¡¼­ Æò±Õ 5.6°³¿ù¿¡¼­ 5.0°³¿ù·Î 2Â÷ Á¶»ç ±â°£¿¡¼­ 0.6°³¿ù ´ÜÃàµÇ¾ú´Ù.

°á ·Ð: ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú·Î º¼ ¶§ 1Â÷ Á¶»ç¿¡¼­º¸´Ù 2Â÷ Á¶»ç½Ã¿¡ ½Ä¸³µÈ ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¼ö ¹× »ýÁ¸À²ÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´°í 1Â÷¼ö¼ú ÈĺÎÅÍ 2Â÷ ¼ö¼ú Àü±îÁö ±â°£µµ ´ÜÃàµÇ°í ÀÖÀ½À» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ¾ÕÀ¸·Îµµ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °ü½É°ú ¼ö¿ä°¡ °è¼Ó Áõ°¡ ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ°í ±× ¼º°øÀ² ¶ÇÇÑ Áõ°¡Çϸ®¶ó »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

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.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¼ö;ÀÓÇöõÆ® À§Ä¡ ¹× ºÐÆ÷;1Â÷ ¼ö¼ú°ú 2Â÷ ¼ö¼ú»çÀÌÀÇ ±â°£ ÀÓÇöõÆ® »ýÁ¸À²
number of placed implants;location and distribution of implants;duration between the first and second surgery;survival rate of implants

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed