Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

A retrospective clinical study on the evaluation of the survival rate and marginal bone resorption of implant placement immediately after tooth extraction

´ëÇÑÀΰøÄ¡¾Æ°ñÀ¯ÂøÇÐȸÁö 2021³â 13±Ç 1È£ p.29 ~ 35
¹Ú»ó·¡, ¹®¹Ì¸®, À̽½±â, Á¶ÇýÇö, ¹ÚÇýÀÎ, ÀÌ¿ëºó,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹Ú»ó·¡ ( Park Sang-Rae ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
¹®¹Ì¸® ( Moon Mi-Ri ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
À̽½±â ( Lee Seul-Ki ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Á¶ÇýÇö ( Jo Hye-Hyun ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
¹ÚÇýÀΠ( Park Hye-In ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
ÀÌ¿ëºó ( Lee Yong-Bin ) - Hankook General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical results of screw retained type and locking taper type implants immediately placed in the extraction site to determine the implant survival rate and to analyze the marginal bone resorption of both types of implants during the healing process.

Materials & Methods: From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016, 211 implants placed immediately after tooth extraction in 158 patients at Cheongju Hankook Hospital were followed up for up to 6 years for survival rate and mesiodistal marginal bone resorption. The implants used were 96 screw retained type (AF) implants and 115 locking taper type (SF) implants from SNUCONE¢ç.

Results: 1) Two out of 211 implants in a total of 158 patients failed, resulting in a survival rate of 99.05%. The cause of the failed implant was the lack of initial fixation power due to lack of bone quality and bone mass. 2) The marginal bone resorption was 0.44 ¡¾ 0.59 mm in the mesial marginal bone and 0.39 ¡¾ 0.71 mm in the distal marginal bone for about 4 years after the prosthesis was installed, and very good results were obtained. In detail, in AF implants, mesial bone resorption was 0.41 ¡¾ 0.58 mm, distal marginal bone resorption was 0.38 ¡¾ 0.83 mm, and in SF implants, mesial marginal bone resorption was 0.46 ¡¾ 0.59 mm, and distal marginal bone resorption was 0.39 ¡¾ 0.58 mm, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Previously, there were not many papers comparing the screw retained type implant and the locking taper type implant in implants placed immediately after tooth extraction, so this study was conducted. If the initial fixation with the alveolar bone is secured when the implant is placed immediately after tooth extraction, it is thought that a high predictive treatment result can be obtained not only for screw retained type implants but also for locking taper type implants.

Å°¿öµå

Immediate implant placement; Marginal bone resorption; Survival rate

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸