ABSTRACT
Objectives@#Ultra-wide implants may be used as a replacement if existing implants fail. This study was conducted to evaluate the factors influencing the prognosis and failure of ultra-wide implants. @*Patients and Methods@#This study evaluated whether sex, age, site, diameter, length, additional surgery, implant stability (primary and secondary), and reason for ultra-wide implant placement affect the 5-year survival and success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of ultra-wide implants. Seventy-eight ultra-wide implants that were placed in 71 patients (39 males and 32 females) from 2008 to 2010 were studied. One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to evaluate the statistical significance of MBL according to the patient’s sex, implant site, and diameter. Independent sample t-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of MBL analysis which was used to determine the significance of the 5-year success and survival rates related to the variables. One-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the statistical significance of sex, implantation site, diameter, and MBL. Independent sample t-tests were used to evaluate the correlation between implantability and MBL for implantation reasons, while additional surgery, length, and Kaplan–Meier analysis were used to evaluate 5-year survival and success rates. @*Results@#The mean age of patients was 54.2 years with a survival rate of 92.3% and a success rate of 83.3% over a mean 97.8-month period of observation. MBL averaged 0.2 mm after one year of prosthetic function loading and 0.54 mm at the time of final observation. Success rates correlated with primary stability (P=0.045), survival rates correlated with secondary stability (P=0.036), and MBL did not correlate with any variables. @*Conclusion@#Ultra-wide implants can be used to achieve secure initial fixation in the maxillary and mandibular molar regions with poor bone quality or for alternative purposes in cases of previous implant failure.
ABSTRACT
Objectives@#In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we measured the primary and secondary stability of two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla, applied 3-month loading protocols, and compared and analyzed the short-term outcomes of the implants. @*Patients and Methods@#From June 2018 to June 2019, patients with a residual bone height of 4 mm in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups to place SA implants (Osstem Implants, Korea) in Group A and NH implants (Hiossen, USA) in Group B. Finally, 14 implants placed in 13 patients in Group A and 17 implants placed in 14 patients in Group B were analyzed. The measured primary and secondary stability of each implant was represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ), and treatment outcomes were evaluated. @*Results@#Group A consisted of patients with an average age of 62.2 years (range, 48-80 years), and Group B consisted of patients with an average age of 58.1 years (range, 35-82 years). Primary stability was 73.86±6.40 and 71.24±5.32 in Groups A and B, respectively (P=0.222). Secondary stability was 79.07±5.21 in Group A and 78.29±4.74 in Group B (P=0.667). A steep increase in ISQ during the healing period was observed in Group B, though it was not significant (P=0.265). The mean follow-up period was 378.5±164.6 days in Group A and 385.3±167.9 days in Group B. All implants in each group met the success criteria, and the success rate was 100%. @*Conclusion@#Two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla with greater than 4 mm alveolar bone height exhibited successful one-year treatment outcomes if a primary stability of 65 or higher ISQ was obtained and a 3-month early loading protocol was applied.
ABSTRACT
Objectives@#In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we measured the primary and secondary stability of two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla, applied 3-month loading protocols, and compared and analyzed the short-term outcomes of the implants. @*Patients and Methods@#From June 2018 to June 2019, patients with a residual bone height of 4 mm in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups to place SA implants (Osstem Implants, Korea) in Group A and NH implants (Hiossen, USA) in Group B. Finally, 14 implants placed in 13 patients in Group A and 17 implants placed in 14 patients in Group B were analyzed. The measured primary and secondary stability of each implant was represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ), and treatment outcomes were evaluated. @*Results@#Group A consisted of patients with an average age of 62.2 years (range, 48-80 years), and Group B consisted of patients with an average age of 58.1 years (range, 35-82 years). Primary stability was 73.86±6.40 and 71.24±5.32 in Groups A and B, respectively (P=0.222). Secondary stability was 79.07±5.21 in Group A and 78.29±4.74 in Group B (P=0.667). A steep increase in ISQ during the healing period was observed in Group B, though it was not significant (P=0.265). The mean follow-up period was 378.5±164.6 days in Group A and 385.3±167.9 days in Group B. All implants in each group met the success criteria, and the success rate was 100%. @*Conclusion@#Two surface-treated implants placed in the posterior maxilla with greater than 4 mm alveolar bone height exhibited successful one-year treatment outcomes if a primary stability of 65 or higher ISQ was obtained and a 3-month early loading protocol was applied.