Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region

A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study

Ki Tae Koo, Ulf M E Wikesjö, Jang Yeol Park, Tae Kim, Yang Jo Seol, Young Ku, In Chul Rhyu, Chong Pyoung Chung, Yong Moo Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To our knowledge no study has evaluated the success or survival rate of single-tooth implants that replaced missing maxillary and mandibular second molars. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the 1- to 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single-tooth implants placed inthe second molar region and the effects of associated factors. Methods: Four hundred eighty-nine patients (298 males and 191 females; age range: 23 to 91 years; mean age: 47 years) who were admitted to the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between March 2003 and July 2008 and treated with single-tooth implants in the second molar region (227 maxillary implants and 294 mandibular implants; total: 521 implants) were included in the study. Thirty-two subjects received two implants each. A 1- to 5-year CSR was calculated using a life-table analysis. A comparison of CSRs between maxillary versus mandibular implants, one-stage versus two-stage implants, short (≤8.5 mm) versus long (<10 mm) implants, and standard-diameter (≤4.0 mm) versus widediameter (≥5.0 mm) implants was performed using Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics. P lt; 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifteen of the 521 implants were lost between insertion and the follow-up examinations. The 1- to 5-year CSR was 95.1%. There were no statistically significant differences in CSRs between implants placed in maxillas and mandibles (96.3% versus 94.9%, respectively; P = 0.084), one- and two-stage implants (95.6% versus 94.7%, respectively; P = 0.267), short and long implants (100% versus 95.1%, respectively; P = 0.582), and standard- and wide-diameter implants (93.8% versus 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.065). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the placement of single-tooth implants in the second molar region was an effective and reliable treatment modality. Also, associated factors such as implant diameter, length, and location (themaxilla versus the mandible) may not have an impact on the longterm success of implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1242-1249
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of periodontology
Volume81
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2010

Fingerprint

Single-Tooth Dental Implants
Life Tables
Survival Rate
Retrospective Studies
Mandible
Maxilla
Tooth

Keywords

  • Dental implants
  • Life tables
  • Single-tooth
  • Survival rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Cite this

Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region : A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study. / Koo, Ki Tae; Wikesjö, Ulf M E; Park, Jang Yeol; Kim, Tae; Seol, Yang Jo; Ku, Young; Rhyu, In Chul; Chung, Chong Pyoung; Lee, Yong Moo.

In: Journal of periodontology, Vol. 81, No. 9, 01.09.2010, p. 1242-1249.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Koo, KT, Wikesjö, UME, Park, JY, Kim, T, Seol, YJ, Ku, Y, Rhyu, IC, Chung, CP & Lee, YM 2010, 'Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region: A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study', Journal of periodontology, vol. 81, no. 9, pp. 1242-1249. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100064
Koo, Ki Tae ; Wikesjö, Ulf M E ; Park, Jang Yeol ; Kim, Tae ; Seol, Yang Jo ; Ku, Young ; Rhyu, In Chul ; Chung, Chong Pyoung ; Lee, Yong Moo. / Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region : A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study. In: Journal of periodontology. 2010 ; Vol. 81, No. 9. pp. 1242-1249.
@article{8b5954ac90a94403aee5aef087e0e015,
title = "Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region: A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study",
abstract = "Background: To our knowledge no study has evaluated the success or survival rate of single-tooth implants that replaced missing maxillary and mandibular second molars. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the 1- to 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single-tooth implants placed inthe second molar region and the effects of associated factors. Methods: Four hundred eighty-nine patients (298 males and 191 females; age range: 23 to 91 years; mean age: 47 years) who were admitted to the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between March 2003 and July 2008 and treated with single-tooth implants in the second molar region (227 maxillary implants and 294 mandibular implants; total: 521 implants) were included in the study. Thirty-two subjects received two implants each. A 1- to 5-year CSR was calculated using a life-table analysis. A comparison of CSRs between maxillary versus mandibular implants, one-stage versus two-stage implants, short (≤8.5 mm) versus long (<10 mm) implants, and standard-diameter (≤4.0 mm) versus widediameter (≥5.0 mm) implants was performed using Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics. P lt; 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifteen of the 521 implants were lost between insertion and the follow-up examinations. The 1- to 5-year CSR was 95.1{\%}. There were no statistically significant differences in CSRs between implants placed in maxillas and mandibles (96.3{\%} versus 94.9{\%}, respectively; P = 0.084), one- and two-stage implants (95.6{\%} versus 94.7{\%}, respectively; P = 0.267), short and long implants (100{\%} versus 95.1{\%}, respectively; P = 0.582), and standard- and wide-diameter implants (93.8{\%} versus 96.8{\%}, respectively; P = 0.065). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the placement of single-tooth implants in the second molar region was an effective and reliable treatment modality. Also, associated factors such as implant diameter, length, and location (themaxilla versus the mandible) may not have an impact on the longterm success of implants.",
keywords = "Dental implants, Life tables, Single-tooth, Survival rate",
author = "Koo, {Ki Tae} and Wikesj{\"o}, {Ulf M E} and Park, {Jang Yeol} and Tae Kim and Seol, {Yang Jo} and Young Ku and Rhyu, {In Chul} and Chung, {Chong Pyoung} and Lee, {Yong Moo}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1902/jop.2010.100064",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "81",
pages = "1242--1249",
journal = "Journal of Periodontology",
issn = "0022-3492",
publisher = "American Academy of Periodontology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of single-tooth implants in the second molar region

T2 - A 5-year life-table analysis of a retrospective study

AU - Koo, Ki Tae

AU - Wikesjö, Ulf M E

AU - Park, Jang Yeol

AU - Kim, Tae

AU - Seol, Yang Jo

AU - Ku, Young

AU - Rhyu, In Chul

AU - Chung, Chong Pyoung

AU - Lee, Yong Moo

PY - 2010/9/1

Y1 - 2010/9/1

N2 - Background: To our knowledge no study has evaluated the success or survival rate of single-tooth implants that replaced missing maxillary and mandibular second molars. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the 1- to 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single-tooth implants placed inthe second molar region and the effects of associated factors. Methods: Four hundred eighty-nine patients (298 males and 191 females; age range: 23 to 91 years; mean age: 47 years) who were admitted to the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between March 2003 and July 2008 and treated with single-tooth implants in the second molar region (227 maxillary implants and 294 mandibular implants; total: 521 implants) were included in the study. Thirty-two subjects received two implants each. A 1- to 5-year CSR was calculated using a life-table analysis. A comparison of CSRs between maxillary versus mandibular implants, one-stage versus two-stage implants, short (≤8.5 mm) versus long (<10 mm) implants, and standard-diameter (≤4.0 mm) versus widediameter (≥5.0 mm) implants was performed using Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics. P lt; 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifteen of the 521 implants were lost between insertion and the follow-up examinations. The 1- to 5-year CSR was 95.1%. There were no statistically significant differences in CSRs between implants placed in maxillas and mandibles (96.3% versus 94.9%, respectively; P = 0.084), one- and two-stage implants (95.6% versus 94.7%, respectively; P = 0.267), short and long implants (100% versus 95.1%, respectively; P = 0.582), and standard- and wide-diameter implants (93.8% versus 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.065). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the placement of single-tooth implants in the second molar region was an effective and reliable treatment modality. Also, associated factors such as implant diameter, length, and location (themaxilla versus the mandible) may not have an impact on the longterm success of implants.

AB - Background: To our knowledge no study has evaluated the success or survival rate of single-tooth implants that replaced missing maxillary and mandibular second molars. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the 1- to 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single-tooth implants placed inthe second molar region and the effects of associated factors. Methods: Four hundred eighty-nine patients (298 males and 191 females; age range: 23 to 91 years; mean age: 47 years) who were admitted to the Seoul National University Dental Hospital between March 2003 and July 2008 and treated with single-tooth implants in the second molar region (227 maxillary implants and 294 mandibular implants; total: 521 implants) were included in the study. Thirty-two subjects received two implants each. A 1- to 5-year CSR was calculated using a life-table analysis. A comparison of CSRs between maxillary versus mandibular implants, one-stage versus two-stage implants, short (≤8.5 mm) versus long (<10 mm) implants, and standard-diameter (≤4.0 mm) versus widediameter (≥5.0 mm) implants was performed using Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics. P lt; 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifteen of the 521 implants were lost between insertion and the follow-up examinations. The 1- to 5-year CSR was 95.1%. There were no statistically significant differences in CSRs between implants placed in maxillas and mandibles (96.3% versus 94.9%, respectively; P = 0.084), one- and two-stage implants (95.6% versus 94.7%, respectively; P = 0.267), short and long implants (100% versus 95.1%, respectively; P = 0.582), and standard- and wide-diameter implants (93.8% versus 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.065). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the placement of single-tooth implants in the second molar region was an effective and reliable treatment modality. Also, associated factors such as implant diameter, length, and location (themaxilla versus the mandible) may not have an impact on the longterm success of implants.

KW - Dental implants

KW - Life tables

KW - Single-tooth

KW - Survival rate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956566088&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956566088&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1902/jop.2010.100064

DO - 10.1902/jop.2010.100064

M3 - Article

VL - 81

SP - 1242

EP - 1249

JO - Journal of Periodontology

JF - Journal of Periodontology

SN - 0022-3492

IS - 9

ER -