Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Micro thread¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ GSII RBMÀÓÇöõÆ®(Osstem)ÀÇ ÈÄÇâÀû Àӻ󿬱¸

Áö¿µ´ö, ÀÌÀçȯ, ¿À»óõ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Áö¿µ´ö ( Chee Young-Deok ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌÀçȯ ( Lee Jae-Hwan ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­¾Ç¾È¸é¿Ü°úÇб³½Ç
¿À»óõ ( Oh Sang-Chun ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

°ñÀ¯Âø¼º ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ ¼Ò°³µÈ ÀÌÈÄ·Î ºÎºÐ ¹× ¹«Ä¡¾Ç ºÎÀ§¿¡¼­ »ç¿ëµÇ¾î ³ôÀº ¼º°ø·ü°ú ÇÔ²² ¿¹Áö¼º ÀÖ´Â °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ´Â Ä¡·á¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ÀÎÁ¤¹Þ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±¹³»¿¡¼­ °³¹ßµÈ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â ÀÓ»óÀûÀÌ°í °´°üÀûÀÎ ¿¬±¸ ÀÚ·á°¡ ºÒÃæºÐÇÏ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â 31¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡°Ô¼­ ÀÓÇöõÆ® °æºÎ¿¡ ¹Ì¼¼³ª»ç¸¦ Áö´Ñ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ ÈÄ Æò±Õ 21°³¿ùÀÇ ±â°£ µ¿¾È ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²¿¡ °üÇÑ Á¶»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´°í ºÎÇÏ°¡ °¡ÇØÁö´Â ½ÃÁ¡À» ±âÁØÀ¸·Î 12°³¿ù °£ º¯¿¬°ñÀÇ º¯È­¸¦ Æijë¶ó¸¶»çÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤ °üÂûÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ µµÃâÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÃÑ 96°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡¼­ 3°³ÀÇ ÀÓÇöõÆ®°¡ ½ÇÆÐÇÏ¿© 96.9%ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´´Ù. 50´ë ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ 85.7%·Î °¡Àå ÀÛÀº »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç ¼ºº° ¹× ¿¬·É¿¡ µû¸¥ »ýÁ¸À² ¹× º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö·®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Åë°èÀû À¯ÀǼºÀº Á¸ÀçÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. »ó¾Ç¿¡¼­´Â 95.7% ÇϾǿ¡¼­´Â 100%ÀÇ »ýÁ¸À²À» º¸¿´´Ù. °ñÀÌ½Ä ¿©ºÎ, º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ Á¾·ù, ¸Å½ÄüÀÇ ±æÀÌ ¹× Á÷°æ¿¡ µû¸¥ »ýÁ¸À²ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ±â´É ºÎÇÏ ÈÄ ÀÓÇöõÆ® º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö·®Àº ´ÜÀÏ ±Ý°ü º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÌ ¿¬°á °íÁ¤ º¸Ã¶¹°¿¡ ºñÇØ Áõ°¡µÈ ¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿´À¸³ª ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ Á÷°æ, ±æÀÌ, °ñÀ̽ÄÀÇ À¯¹«, ½Ä¸³À§Ä¡¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ÀÌ ¿¬±¸¸¦ ÅëÇØ °æºÎ¿¡ ¹Ì¼¼³ª»ç¸¦ Áö´Ñ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ½Ä¸³ ÈÄ¿¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ® º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö·®Àº ºñ±³Àû Àû°Ô ÀϾÀ¸¸ç ¶ÇÇÑ ¾ÈÁ¤ÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÁöµÇ´Â °ÍÀÌ °üÂûµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í ÀÌ¿¡ µû¸¥ Àå±âÀûÀÎ ÃßÀû°üÂûÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

Since the introduction of the concept of osseointegration in dental implants, high long-term success rates have been achieved and accepted as viable option for the treatment of fully and partially edentulous patients. Although the use of domestic implants have increased dramatically, there are few studies on domestic implants with clinical and objective long-term data. 96 endosseous implants placed in 31 patients at Wonkwang University Sanbon Dental Hospital were examined to determine the effect of various factors on implant survival rate and marginal bone loss, through clinical and radiographic results. The design of endosseous implant used to this study is straight with the microthread.(GS II RBM Fixture) 1. 3 fixtures were lost, resulting in 96.9% cumulative survival rate. 2. Survival rate in fifties was significantly lower (93.6%) and no significant difference in marginal bone loss was found according to gender. 3. Survival rates were 95.6% in the maxillary molar area and 97.3% in the mandible molar area. 4. No significant difference in survival rate was found according to presence of bone grafts, type of prostheses, implant position, and length and diameter of implant. 5. A factor influencing marginal bone loss was presence of type of prostheses, while facters such a length, diameter of fixture and bone grafts had no statistically significant effect on crestal bone loss. This study indicates the amount of marginal bone loss around implant has maintained a relative stable during follow-up periods.

Å°¿öµå

Ä¡°ú¿ë ÀÓÇöõÆ®;º¯¿¬°ñ Èí¼ö;»ýÁ¸À²
Dental implants;survival rate;marginal bone loss

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI