Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ±¹¼ÒÀû ÀÎÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ 19³â°£ÀÇ ÈÄÇâÀû ¿¬±¸

The effects of local factors on the survival of dental implants: A 19 year retrospective study

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2010³â 48±Ç 1È£ p.28 ~ 40
±è¼ºÈ¸, ±è¼±Àç, À̱ٿì, Çѵ¿ÈÄ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è¼ºÈ¸ ( Kim Sung-Hoi ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Ã¶°úÇб³½Ç
±è¼±Àç ( Kim Sun-Jae ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
À̱ٿì ( Lee Keun-Woo ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Çѵ¿ÈÄ ( Han Dong-Hoo ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû : ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¼º°ø°ú ½ÇÆд ¼÷ÁÖ °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎ, À§Ä¡ °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎ, ¼ö¼ú °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎ, ÀÓÇöõÆ® °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎ, ¼öº¹¹° °ü·Ã ¿äÀÎ µî ´Ù¾çÇÑ ÀÎÀÚ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ °áÁ¤µÈ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ±× Áß ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ½Ä¸³ À§Ä¡, °ñÁú, ÀÓÇöõÆ® Ç¥¸é, ±æÀÌ ¹× Á÷°æ, Ãʱ⠾ÈÁ¤¼º, º¸Ã¶¹° À¯ÇüÀÌ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ¿©, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¿¹Èĸ¦ ¿¹ÃøÇϴµ¥ µµ¿òÀ» ÁÖ°íÀÚÇÑ´Ù.

¿¬±¸ Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 1991³â 2¿ùºÎÅÍ 2009³â 5¿ù »çÀÌ¿¡ ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇк´¿ø¿¡¼­ 5ÀÎÀÇ ¿Ü°úÀÇ°¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¼ö¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏ°í, 1ÀÎÀÇ º¸Ã¶ Àü¹®ÀÇ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ º¸Ã¶ ¼öº¹ÀÌ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁ® Àû¾îµµ 6°³¿ù ÀÌ»ó º¸Ã¶¹°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÁÖ±âÀûÀÎ °Ë»ç°¡ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁø 879¸íȯÀÚ, 2796°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÈÄÇâÀû ¿¬±¸¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áø·á ±â·ÏºÎ ¹× ¹æ»ç¼± »çÁøÀ» ÅëÇØ È¯ÀÚÀÇ ½Ä¸³ ´ç½Ã ³ªÀÌ¿Í ¼ºº°, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ Á¦Á¶È¸»ç, Ç¥¸é, Á÷°æ ¹× ±æÀÌ, ½Ä¸³ ºÎÀ§ ¹× °ñÁú, Ãʱ⠾ÈÁ¤¼º, º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ À¯Çü, »ýÁ¸ ±â°£¿¡ °üÇÑ ÀڷḦ ¼öÁýÇÏ¿´´Ù. À̸¦ ÅëÇØ, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¼º°ø°ú ½ÇÆп¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ±¹¼Ò ÀÎÀÚÀÇ À¯Çü, ºÐÆ÷ ¹× ±¹¼Ò ÀÎÀÚ¿Í »ýÁ¸À² °£ÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ ¿¬±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ýÁ¸À² ºÐ¼®Àº Kaplan-Meier »ýÁ¸ ºÐ¼®¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Æò°¡ ÀÎÀÚ ³» Ç׸ñµéÀÇ »ýÁ¸À² ºñ±³´Â Chi-square test¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ½ÇÆÐ À§Ç輺À» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇØ ¿ÀÁîºñ (odds ratio)¸¦ ±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú : 1. ÃÑ 879¸í¿¡°Ô ½Ä¸³µÈ 2796°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® Áß 150°³°¡ ½ÇÆÐÇÏ¿© ´©Àû »ýÁ¸À²Àº 94.64%·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ±× Áß ±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ´©Àû »ýÁ¸À²Àº 91.76%, °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ´©Àû »ýÁ¸À²Àº 96.02% À̾ú´Ù.
2. ½Ä¸³À§Ä¡, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ Ç¥¸é Ư¼º, ±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ Á÷°æ, Ãʱ⠾ÈÁ¤¼º, º¸Ã¶¹° À¯Çü, ȯÀÚÀÇ ¿¬·É ¹× ¼ºº°ÀÌ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀº Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù(P< .05).
3. ½Ä¸³ ºÎÀ§ÀÇ °ñÁú, ÀÓÇöõÆ® Á¦Á¶»çº° °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é Ư¼º, ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ±æÀÌ ¹× ±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸éÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÑ °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ Á÷°æÀÌ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀº Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù (P> .05).
4. ƯÈ÷, ½ÇÆÐÀ²ÀÌ ³ôÀº °æ¿ì´Â »ó¾Ç ±¸Ä¡ºÎ¿¡ ½Ä¸³ ½Ã (8.84%), ±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸éÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ ½Ã (8.24%), ±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ® Áß wide Á÷°æÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì (14.47%), Ãʱ⠰íÁ¤ÀÌ ºÒ·®ÇÑ °æ¿ì (28.95%), »ó¾Ç¿¡ implant retained overdenture (±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é 26.69%; °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é 10%) ¹× telescopic denture (±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é 100%; °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é 27.27%)·Î ¼öº¹ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì, 60 - 79¼¼ ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô ½Ä¸³ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì (6.90%), ³²¼º¿¡°Ô ½Ä¸³ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì (6.36%) À̾ú´Ù.

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide long-term data about the correlation between multifactorial local factors and the survival of implants.

Materials and Methods : During 19 years (1991 to 2009), 2796 implants were placed in 879 patients. From dental charts and radiographs, the following data were collected: patient¡¯s age at implant placement, gender, implant system, surface, length, diameter, location of implant placement, bone quality, primary stability, type of prosthesis. The correlations between these data and implant survival were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Chi-square test, odds ratio.

Results: 1. Among the 2796 implants, 150 implants failed that resulted in a cumulative survival rate of 94.64%. The cumulative survival rate of smooth surface implants (91.76%) was lower than rough surface implants (96.02%). 2. Anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability, type of prosthesis, patient¡¯s age and gender were significantly associated with implant survival (P < .05). 3. No significant difference in implant survival was found in relation to the following factors: implant length, bone quality, diameter of rough surface implants and type of rough surface according to implant manufacturer (P < .05).

Conclusion: Local factors such as anatomic location, implant surface, diameter of smooth surface implant, primary stability and type of prosthesis have a significant effect on implant survival.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ À¯Çü ¹× ºÐÆ÷;ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½ÇÆÐ;±â°è Àý»è Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®;°ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸é ÀÓÇöõÆ®;½Ä¸³À§Ä¡;Ãʱ⠾ÈÁ¤¼º;º¸Ã¶¹° À¯Çü
Dental implants;Implant failure;Rough surface implants;Smooth surface implants;Location;Primary stability;Type of prosthesis

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed