Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
J Korean Acad Periodontol. 2007 Mar;37(1):137-150. Korean. Original Article.
So SS , Noh HS , Kim CS , Choi SH , Chae JK , Kim CK , Cho KS .
Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Korea.

CADIA(Computer-assisted densitometric image analysis) method is used to analyze bone density changes around the implants. The usefullness and reproducibility of the method was assessed. We tried to find out if there is any possibility to quantitiate and qualitify peri-implant bone density change as time passes. And we concluded that this newly developed linear analysis is efficient for analyzing peri-implant bone density change non-invasively. In this study, 2152 machined Branemark fixtures installed from 1994 to 2002 in the department of Periodontics, Dental hospital of College of Dentistry, Yonsei University were included. Of these fixtures 22 radiographically analyzable failed fixtures were used as experimental group, and 22 successful implants placed in the same patient were used as control group. 1. 57 out of 1635 machined Branemark standard and Mk II implants system failed, the survival rate was 96.5%. And 11 out of 517 machined Branemark Mk III and Mk IV implants system failed, the survival rate was 97.9%. Total survival rate was 96.8%. 2. 22 failed implants were used for the analysis, 10 of which failed before prosthetic treatment due to infection and overheating. 12 failed due to overload after prosthetic treatment, 63.6% of which failed during the early phase of functional loading, i.e. before 1 year of loading. 3. Bone density change values around coronal region of the failed implants were -6.54 +/- 6.35, middle region were -3.53 +/- 5.78, apical region were -0.75 +/- 10.33, resulting in average of -3.71 +/- 8.03. 4. Bone density change values around coronal region of the successful implants were 4.25 +/- 4.66, middle region were 6.33 +/- 5.02, apical region were 9.89 +/-4.67, resulting in average of 6.27 +/- 5.29. 5. There was a statistically significant difference between two groups (p<0.01). In conclusion, the linear analysis method using computer-assisted densitometric image analysis could be a useful method for the analysis of implants, and could be used for future implant researchs.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.