Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ °üÇÑ °íÂû

A systematic review of the survival rate on short implants

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 47±Ç 4È£ p.457 ~ 462
ÀÌÀºÁ¤, ±è¿ø, ÃÖÁö¿µ, ±è½Â¹Ì, ¿À³²½Ä,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÀºÁ¤ ( Lee Eun-Jeong ) - ÀÎÇÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è¿ø ( Kim Won ) - ÀÎÇÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖÁö¿µ ( Choi Ji-Young ) - ÀÎÇÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø Ä¡ÀÇÇб³½Ç
±è½Â¹Ì ( Kim Seong-Mi ) - ÀÎÇÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø Ä¡ÀÇÇб³½Ç
¿À³²½Ä ( Oh Nam-Sik ) - ÀÎÇÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿ä¼Òµé¿¡ µû¸¥ ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ »ýÁ¸À²À» »ìÆ캸°í ªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ç¿ëµµ ¿¹ÈļºÀÖ´Â Ä¡·áÀÎÁö¿¡ °üÇØ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

¿¬±¸¹æ¹ý: MEDLINE (PubMed)À» ÅëÇÏ¿© °Ë»öµÈ ³í¹®¿¡¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ±æÀÌ, Á÷°æ, ½Ä¸³ À§Ä¡, Ç¥¸é ó¸®, »óºÎ ±¸Á¶¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ Á¤º¸¸¦ ÃßÃâÇÏ¿© °¢ ¿äÀκ° »ýÁ¸À²À» ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ±æÀÌ¿Í Á÷°æÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²°ú ±¸°£º° »ýÁ¸À² ºñ±³¸¦ À§ÇØ Ä«ÀÌ Á¦°ö µ¶¸³¼º °ËÁ¤À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ½Ä¸³ À§Ä¡³ª Ç¥¸éó¸®, »óºÎ ±¸Á¶ µðÀÚÀÎ °£ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À² ºñ±³¸¦ À§Çؼ­ Window¿ë SPSS ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ÀÏ¿ø¹èÄ¡ ºÐ»ê ºÐ¼®À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú ¹× °á·Ð: ªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ® (8.5 mm ÀÌÇÏ)ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²Àº 95.87% ¿´À¸¸ç ÀÌ´Â ¿©·¯ ¹®Çå¿¡ º¸°íµÈ Ç¥ÁØÀûÀÎ ±æÀÌ (10 - 12 mm)¸¦ °¡Áø ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²°ú À¯»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±× Áß¿¡¼­µµ ±æÀÌ 6 - 7 mm ªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²ÀÌ ±æÀÌ 7.5 - 12 mm ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²º¸´Ù ´õ ³·¾Ò´Ù (P < .05). ÇÑÆí, Á÷°æ 4 mm¹Ì¸¸, 4 - 5 mm, ±×¸®°í 5 mmÀÌ»óÀÇ 3Áý´ÜÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î »ýÁ¸À² ºñ±³½Ã 4 mm ¹Ì¸¸ Áý´Ü¿¡¼­ ³·Àº »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç ±æÀÌ 6 - 7 mmÀÇ ÂªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ °æ¿ì 5 - 6 mm Á÷°æÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¸¦ ½Ä¸³ÇßÀ» ¶§ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²Àº 97.01%, 3.1 - 4.8 mm Á÷°æÀÏ ¶§ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À² 92.96%·Î Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Machined surface¿Í Ç¥¸é ó¸®µÈ ªÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À² ºñ±³½Ã Ç¥¸é ó¸®µÈ °æ¿ì°¡ ¾à 6.3% Á¤µµ ³ôÀº »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç º¸Ã¶ ¼öº¹½Ã ÀÎÁ¢ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿Í ¿¬°áÇÑ °æ¿ì (99.4%)°¡ ´ÜÀÏ ÀÓÇöõÆ® Ä¡°üÀ¸·Î ¼öº¹ÇÑ °æ¿ì (94.3%)º¸´Ù ³ôÀº »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´´Ù.

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to obtain the comprehensive survival rates of short implants. Then it was examined that whether treatment using short implants has favorable results.

Methods: A MEDLINE search was performed, the data obtained from many articles about length, diameter, site of placement, surface treatment and prosthetic design were analyzed.

Results and Discussion: The data obtained from many articles were analyzed, and it was found that the survival rate of short implants was 95.87%, short implants has similar outcomes to those reported for standard implants. On the other hand, in the comparison the survival rate of 3 groups divided by the diameter of implants under 4 mm, 4 - 5 mm, and above 5 mm, a statistically significant difference was detected in under 4mm group. In implant group with 6 - 7 mm length, a group with 5 - 6 mm diameter has survival rate of 97.01%, groups with 3.1 - 4.8 mm diameter has survival rate of 92.96%, which was statistically significantly different. In the result of surface feature, the roughed surface groups of short implant showed a higher survival rate by approximately 6.3% than machined surface group. In the result of prosthetic design, survival rate of short implant was considerably lower for the single implant crown group (94.3%) than splinting group (99.4%).

Å°¿öµå

ÀÓÇöõÆ®;ªÀº;±æÀÌ;Á÷°æ;Ç¥¸éó¸®;½Ä¸³ À§Ä¡
Implant;Short;Length;Diameter;Surface feature;Inserted site

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed