16년 간 long-term data를 통한 임플란트 환자의 유형 및 분포에 대한 연구

정지희; 채경준; 윤정호; 정의원; 송시은; 김창성; 조규성; 채중규; 김종관; 최성호

SITE LINK

16년 간 long-term data를 통한 임플란트 환자의 유형 및 분포에 대한 연구
The Distribution of Implant Patients and the Type of Implant Site for 16 years

대한구강악안면임플란트학회지 2008년 12권 1호 p.62 ~ 78

정지희, 채경준, 윤정호, 정의원, 송시은, 김창성, 조규성, 채중규, 김종관, 최성호,

소속 상세정보

정지희 ( Jung Jee-Hee ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
채경준 ( Chae Gyung-Joon ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
윤정호 ( Yun Jeong-Ho ) - 관동대학교 의과대학 명지병원 치과
정의원 ( Jung Ui-Won ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
송시은 ( Song Si-Eun ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
김창성 ( Kim Chang-Sung ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
조규성 ( Cho Kyoo-Sung ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
채중규 ( Chae Jung-Kiu ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
김종관 ( Kim Chong-Kwan ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실
최성호 ( Choi Seong-Ho ) - 연세대학교 치과대학 치주과학교실

KMID : 0602720080120010062

Abstract

Nowdays, the implant treatment has become a widely accepted treatment for the patients and even for the general dentists. Unlike the other treatment like bridges or dentures, this can preserve the adjacent teeth without any modification and the existing bone. The following results on patient type and implant distribution were compiled from 8634 implant cases of 3303 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Yonsei Dental College Hospital between 1992 and 2007 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in accounting for 49.8% and 50.2%. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 50.0% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(33.1%), Mx anterior area(11.4%) and Mn anterior area(5.4%). 3. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. 4. In the distribution of bone quality for maxillae, type III was most, followed by type II, type IV and type I. As for the mandible, type II was most followed by type III, type IV, and type I. 5. In the distribution of bone quantity, type B was most(46.8%), followed by type C, type D, type A, and for type E. 6. The majority of implants were those of 10-15mm in length (89.1%) and standard diameter in width (53.0%). The results provided us with basic data on patient type, implant distribution, bone condition, etc. We wish that our results coupled with other research data helps assist in the further study for better implant success/survival rates, etc.