Browse

Evaluation of Single-Tooth Implants in the Second Molar Region: A 5-Year Life-Table Analysis of a Retrospective Study

Cited 27 time in Web of Science Cited 28 time in Scopus
Authors
Koo, Ki-Tae; Wikesjoe, Ulf M. E.; Park, Jang-Yeol; Kim, Tae-Il; Ku, Young; Chung, Chong-Pyoung; Lee, Yong-Moo; Rhyu, In-Chul; Seol, Yang-Jo
Issue Date
2010-09
Publisher
American Academy of Periodontology
Citation
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, Vol.81, No.9, pp.1242-1249
Keywords
Dental implantssingle-toothsurvival ratelife tables
Abstract
Background: To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the success or survival rate of single-tooth implants that replaced missing maxillary and mandibular second molars. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the 1- to 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single-tooth implants placed in the second molar region and the effects of associated factors. Methods: Four hundred eighty-nine patients (298 males and 191 females; age range: 23 to 91 years; mean age: 47 years) who were admitted to the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between March 2003 and July 2008 and treated with single-tooth implants in the second molar region (227 maxillary implants and 294 mandibular implants; total: 521 implants) were included in the study. Thirty-two subjects received two implants each. A 1- to 5-year CSR was calculated using a life-table analysis. A comparison of CSRs between maxillary versus mandibular implants, one-stage versus two-stage implants, short (<= 8.5 mm) versus long (>10 mm) implants, and standard-diameter (<= 4.0 mm) versus wide-diameter (>= 5.0 mm) implants was performed using Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics. P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifteen of the 521 implants were lost between insertion and the follow-up examinations. The 1- to 5-year CSR was 95.1%. There were no statistically significant differences in CSRs between implants placed in maxillas and mandibles (96.3% versus 94.9%, respectively; P = 0.084), one- and two-stage implants (95.6% versus 94.7%, respectively; P = 0.267), short and long implants (100% versus 95.1%, respectively; P = 0.582), and standard- and wide-diameter implants (93.8% versus 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.065). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the placement of single-tooth implants in the second molar region was an effective and reliable treatment modality. Also, associated factors such as implant diameter, length, and location (the maxilla versus the mandible) may not have an impact on the long-term success of implants. J Periodontol 2010;81:1242-1249.
ISSN
0022-3492
Language
English
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10371/81053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100064
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in Collections:
College of Dentistry/School of Dentistry (치과대학/치의학대학원)Dept. of Dentistry (치의학과)Journal Papers (저널논문_치의학과)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse