The Comparison between the success rates of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar / 대한치주과학회지

Osseointegrated implnats have proven to be successful in both full and partial edentulous patients since the 1960s and recently have shown successful results when used to restore single tooth missing. However, in most studies reporting the success of single implants, single implants replacing anterior teeth are more frequently mentioned than posterior single implants. Moreover, in studies regarding posterior single implants, the replaced region seemed to be variable; the maxilla, mandible and areas from the first premolar to the second molar were mentioned. However, considering the difference in bone quality in the mandible and maxilla, and the increased occlusal force in the posterior region, the success rates in each region may be different. In this study, the cumulative success rates and amount of bone loss of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar, respectively, were compared and analyzed to come to the following conclusion. 1. The 20 (20 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular first molar region were all successful and showed a 100% 5 year cumulative success rate. Among the 27 (24 persons) single implants replacing the mandibular second molar, 8 failed (27.63%) showing a 5 year cumulative success rate of 70.37%. 2. Among the 8 failed implants, one showed symptoms of postoperative infection and one complained of parenthesia. 6 implants failed after functional loading; 5 showed mobility and one resulted in fixture fracture. 3. After the attachment of the prosthesis, there was no significant statistical difference regarding the marginal bone loss in group 1 and group 2 during the checkup period (P>0.05). In conclusion, restoration of the mandibular first molar using single implants was found to be an excellent treatment modality, and when replacing mandibular second molars with single implants, poor bone quality and risk of overloading must be considered.

Clinical Long-term Assessment of Bioactive Glass Graft / 대한치주과학회지

The ultimate goal of periodontal therapy is the regeneration of periodontal tissue which has been lost due to destructive periodontal disease. To achieve periodontal regeneration, various kinds of methods have been investigated and developed, including guided tissue regeneration and bone graft. Bone graft can be catagorized into autografts, allografts, xenografts, bone substitutes. And materials of all types have different biological activity and the capacity for periodontal regeneration, but ideal graft material has not been developed that fits all the requirement of ideal bone graft material. Recently, bioactive glass that has been utilized in plastic surgery is being investigated for application in dental practice. But, there has not been any long-term assessment of bioactive glass when used in periodontal intrabony defects. The present study evaluates the long-term effects of bioactive glass on the periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects of human and the effect of plaqu control on long term treatment results after dividing patients into those who underwent 3-month regular check-up and those who didn't under go regular check-up The clinical effect on 74sites from 17 infrabony pockets of 11 patients were analyzed 36months after treatment. 51 sites which underwent regular check up were classified as the Follow-up group(F/U group), and 23 sites which did not undergo regular check up were classified as Non Follow-up group(Non F/U group). After comparing the probing depth, attachment loss, bone probing depth before and 36months after treatment, the following results could be concluded. 1. The changes of probing pocket depth showed a statistically significant decrease between after baseline and 36 months after treatment in F/U group(1.79+/-0.68mm) and did no show astatistically significant decrease between after baseline and 36months after treatment in Non F/U group(0.61+/-0.54mm) (P<0.05). 2. The changes of loss of attachment showed a statistically significant decrease between after baseline and 36months after treatment in F/U group(1.44+/-0.74mm) and did no show astatistically significant decrease between after baseline and 36months after treatment in Non F/U group(1.18+/-1.54) (P<0.05). 3. The changes of bone probing depth showed a statistically significant decrease between after baseline and 36 months after treatment in both F/U(1.35+/-0.28) and Non F/U group(0.78+/-0.55mm) (P<0.05). The results suggest that treatment of infrabony defects with bioactive glass resulted in significan reduction of attachment loss and bone probing depth 36months after the treatment. The use of bioactive glass in infrabony defects, combined with regular check-up and proper plaque control generally shows favorable clinical results. This measn that bioactive glass could be a useful bone substitute.