This retrospective clinical study was conducted after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-2208-774-111).
From January 2008 to December 2010, 81 subjects underwent dental implant placement therapy at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Eighty-eight ultra-wide implants with diameters of 6 mm and 7 mm were placed in 81 patients. Among them, 1 case was excluded due to the inability of follow-up checks because prosthetic treatment was not conducted at this hospital, 1 case was excluded due to the inability for evaluation because radiographs were not taken at the time of the final observation, and 14 cases within 12 months of the follow-up period after prosthetic loading were excluded from the study. As a result, a retrospective clinical study was conducted on 78 implants placed in 71 patients.
The reasons for using ultra-wide implants were as follows: First, an ultra-wide implant was selected as the initial choice due to poor bone quality. Second, if an implant with a diameter of 5 mm or less was attempted during surgery, but initial fixation was not obtained, an ultra-wide implant was used. Third, an ultra-wide was used for replacement after the removal of failed implants.(Table 1 )
All patients underwent surgeries performed by one oral and maxillofacial surgeon, and primary stability was measured during the initial surgery, while secondary stability was measured for ultra-wide implants during the second surgery. All of the patients visited the hospital for a regular one-year check-up and underwent clinical examinations and periapical radiographs. Clinical examinations evaluated pocket depth, suppuration, and pus. MBL values were evaluated with periapical radiographs.
Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was used to measure implant stability (primary and secondary). In this study, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured and RFA was evaluated using an Osstell Mentor (Gothhenburg, Sweden), an integration diagnostic tool. The ISQ figure was recorded between 0-100 with the manufacturer statement of successful implants being above 65 ISQ, while values below 50 ISQ were the criterion for failure or risk of failure of the implant. Among the placed implants, primary stability was not measured for five implants and secondary stability was not measured for two implants.
The mean age of the patients was 54.2 years old with 39 males and 32 females. The age group in which implants were placed was the largest in their 50s, followed by those in their 60s and 40s.(Table 2 ) The mean healing period was 22 weeks after implant placement before prosthetic loading. The mean follow-up period for patients was 97.8 months. The healing period was set as the period from the time of surgery to second therapy or initial impression taking for prosthesis fabrication. The final observation period was set as the period from the time of prosthetic loading to the time of the final visit. The diameter and length of the implant, the implant site (upper/lower jaw), surgery stage, and the presence of additional surgical procedures (guided bone regeneration [GBR] and sinus lift) were evaluated.(Table 3 )
The success and survival of the implants and MBL according to the variables were evaluated.
From January 2008 to December 2010, 81 subjects underwent dental implant placement therapy at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Eighty-eight ultra-wide implants with diameters of 6 mm and 7 mm were placed in 81 patients. Among them, 1 case was excluded due to the inability of follow-up checks because prosthetic treatment was not conducted at this hospital, 1 case was excluded due to the inability for evaluation because radiographs were not taken at the time of the final observation, and 14 cases within 12 months of the follow-up period after prosthetic loading were excluded from the study. As a result, a retrospective clinical study was conducted on 78 implants placed in 71 patients.
The reasons for using ultra-wide implants were as follows: First, an ultra-wide implant was selected as the initial choice due to poor bone quality. Second, if an implant with a diameter of 5 mm or less was attempted during surgery, but initial fixation was not obtained, an ultra-wide implant was used. Third, an ultra-wide was used for replacement after the removal of failed implants.(
All patients underwent surgeries performed by one oral and maxillofacial surgeon, and primary stability was measured during the initial surgery, while secondary stability was measured for ultra-wide implants during the second surgery. All of the patients visited the hospital for a regular one-year check-up and underwent clinical examinations and periapical radiographs. Clinical examinations evaluated pocket depth, suppuration, and pus. MBL values were evaluated with periapical radiographs.
Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was used to measure implant stability (primary and secondary). In this study, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured and RFA was evaluated using an Osstell Mentor (Gothhenburg, Sweden), an integration diagnostic tool. The ISQ figure was recorded between 0-100 with the manufacturer statement of successful implants being above 65 ISQ, while values below 50 ISQ were the criterion for failure or risk of failure of the implant. Among the placed implants, primary stability was not measured for five implants and secondary stability was not measured for two implants.
The mean age of the patients was 54.2 years old with 39 males and 32 females. The age group in which implants were placed was the largest in their 50s, followed by those in their 60s and 40s.(
The success and survival of the implants and MBL according to the variables were evaluated.
