The Study of Implant Patient's Type and Implant Distribution

Hong, Sung Jae; Paik, Jeong Won; Kim, Chang Sung; Choi, Seong Ho; Lee, Keun Woo; Chai, Jung Kiu; Kim, Chong Kwan; Cho, Kyoo Sung

Abstract

It has been approximately 40 years since Branemark first introduced osseo-integration for implants in the early 1960s. Unlike crown and bridge or denture treatment, implant treatment helps preserve existing bone and improve masticatory functions. Thus, the awareness of implant treatment has grown rapidly among dentists and patients alike in Korea, as it becomes a widely accepted treatment. The following results on patient type and implant distribution were compiled from 1814 implant cases of 640 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Y University Hospital during 1992 to 2001. 1. There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 40, 50s accounting for 49% of patients and 56% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments. 2. Mn. posterior area accounted for 59% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(21%), Mx anterior area(14%) and Mn anterior area(6%). 3. Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 98% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 2%. 4. The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing. Compared to women, men are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease. Also, older people are more likely to suffer from tooth loss due to periodontal disease rather than dental caries. 5. The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 52% for type III, followed by 28% for type II, 20% for type IV and 0% for type I. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type II, followed by 37% for type III, 7% for type IV and 4% for type I. 6. The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 49% for type C, followed by 34% for type B, 14% for type D, 3% for type A, and 0% for type E. As for mandible, the distribution was 52% for type B, followed by 39% for type C, 6% for type D, 3% for type A and 0% for type E. 7. The majority of implants were those of 10-14mm in length (80%) and regular diameter in width (79%). The results provided us with basic data on patient type, implant distribution, bone condition, etc. We wish that our results coupled with other research data helps assist in the further study for better implant success/survival rates, etc.