Published online Sep 30, 2007.
https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.2007.37.3.523
A Retrospective study of the type of patients, the distribution of implant and the survival rate of Xive® implant
Abstract
This study is an analysis of types of patients and distribution of implant site and survival rate of Xive® implant.
The following results on patient type, implant distribution and survival rate were compiled from 324 implant cases of 140 patients treated at the periodontal dept. of Yonsei University Hospital and G dental clinic between February 2003 and April 2006.
There are no dissimilarities between men and women, with patients in their 30, 40, 50s accounting for 80% of patients and accounted for 82% of implant treatments; the largest share of patients and implant treatments.
Mn. posterior area accounted for 57% of implant treatments followed by Mx. posterior area(29%), Mx. anterior area(8%) and Mn. anterior area(6%).
Partial edentulous patients treated by single crown and bridge-type prosthesis accounted for 96% and fully edentulous patient accounted for the remaining 4%.
The major cause of tooth loss is periodontal disease, followed by dental caries, trauma and congenital missing.
The distribution of bone quality for maxillae was 54.2% for typeIII, followed by 30.8% for type II, 15% for typeIV and 0% for typeI. As for mandible, the distribution was 63% for typeII, followed by 34% for typeIII, 2.5% for typeI and 0.5% for typeIV.
The distribution of bone quantity for maxillae was 55% for type C, followed by 35% for type B, 8% for type D and 2% for type A. As for mandible, the distribution was 60% for type B, followed by 32% for type C, 7% for type A and 0% for type D.
The majority of implants were those of 9.5-13 mm in length(95%) and regular diameter in width(82%).
-
The total survival rate was 98%.
The survival rate was 97% in the maxillae region and 99% in the mandible region.
The survival rate in typeI was 83%, in typeII was 99%, in typeIII was 97% and in typeIV was 100%. As for the bone quantity, the survival rate in type A and D(100%) was most, followed by type B(99%) and type C(96%).
The results showed that Xive® implant could be used satisfactorily compare for the other implant system. But we most to approach carefully in certain extreme condition especially with poor bone quality and quantity.
