Tooth Mobility Measurement of Dental Implants

The use of dental implants has increased together with increases in the human life span and it has become an imperative subject for dentists to familiarize themselves with this treatment modality. Unfortunately, there has been no practical and quantitative method for in vivo evaluation of the stability of dental implants. In the tooth mobility examination, the tactile sense of natural teeth is different from that of dental implants. The authors have developed an automatic diagnosis system of tooth mobility for clinical use. The biomechanical mobility of peri-implantium is measured with a pseudo-random vibration, from which the viscoelasticity c1, c2, k of peri-implantium is obtained. The diagnosis system has been applied to the quantitative evaluation of the stability of implants : endodontics endosseous implants (titanium pin), endosseous implants (Bioceram). It has also been applied to the evaluation of the long-term prognoses of dental implantation (Bioceram) and the examination of Intramobile implant (IMZ), and the satisfactory results have been obtained

Effects of Maxillary Sinus Graft on the Survival of Endosseous Implants: A 10-Year Retrospective Study

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the survival rates of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses and compare the results obtained with graft materials, implant surfaces and timing of implant placement. Materials and Methods: Between January 1996 and December 2005, 391 implants are placed in 161 patients who underwent sinus grafting treatment simultaneously or separately at Ewha Womans University Hospital. According to inclusion critieria, 272 impants were placed in 102 patients with 112 sinus grafts (30 females, 72 males), aged 26 to 88 years (mean age 49.0±9.7). The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 134 months (mean F/U 47±32). Survival rates were evaluated according to graft material, implant surface and timing of implant placement, The Kaplan-Meier procedure and the log rank (Mantel-Cox) test were used to estimate survival rates and test for equality of survival rates between different groups of patients. Results: Ten-year cumultative survival rate for implants placed in the grafted sinuses was 90.1%. The survival rates for autogenous bone, combination and bone substitutes were 94.6%, 85.9% and 100% respectively (p\u3e0.05). According to implant surface, survival rates were 84.8% in machined group and 97.5% in rough group (p0.05). Conclusion: Ten-year cumultative survival rate for implants placed in the grafter sinuses was 90.1% Rough-shaped implants have a higher survival rate than machined-surface implants when placed in grafted sinuses. (p\u3c0.05)

Aesthetic satisfaction in lip and palate clefts: a comparative study between secondary and tertiary bone grafting

Lip and palate cleft represent one of the most frequently occurring congenital deformity, which includes dental anomalies, such as variation in tooth number and position. In case of hypodontia implant-prosthetic rehabilitation offers significant advantages in terms of function, aesthetics and quality of life and bone graft is usually needed. Secondary bone grafting, generally performed in the mixed dentition phase (years 8-11) seems to be the most successful method to allow for rehabilitation. It's often necessary to perform a tertiary bone grafting in adult age in order to achieve better bone quantity and quality before implant placement. Aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the aesthetic perception that patients had of themselves comparing dental implants placed in tertiary grafted alveolar cleft sites with a previous secondary grafting to only secondary grafting. Between 2009 and 2012, fourteen alveolar cleft were treated with implant rehabilitation and eleven of them received tertiary bone grafting six months prior to implant placement. All patients were questioned to give a score from 1 to 10 their aesthetic satisfaction of their smile before and after implant rehabilitation and during pre-surgery provisional rehabilitation. At the end of their prosthesis rehabilitation patients who received tertiary bone grafting resulted more satisfied than those who had secondary bone grafting only (9.5 vs 8)