0 505

Cited 2 times in

Complication rates for various retention types in anterior implant-supported prostheses: A retrospective clinical study

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author최성호-
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-29T17:01:55Z-
dc.date.available2021-04-29T17:01:55Z-
dc.date.issued2021-02-
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/182144-
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem: Implant-supported prostheses have typically been retained by cement or screws, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Two new types of prosthesis with complementary advantages and disadvantages have been proposed: the screw- and cement-retained prosthesis, which combines cement and screw retention, and the antiloosening inner-post screw (ALIPS) type, which uses lateral screws. Both esthetic and functional factors should be considered for anterior prostheses; however, clinical studies of the complication rates of these designs are lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the complications of dental implant-supported restorations with various prosthetic types in the anterior region and to analyze other factors that affect complications. Material and methods: This study included 51 patients who had 83 implants placed in the anterior region by a single clinician between August 2009 and December 2016. Surgical and prosthetic features were recorded, and implant complications were analyzed. Results: There were 45 (55.4%) cement-retained implants, 5 (6.0%) screw- and cement-retained prosthesis implants, and 32 (38.6%) ALIPS-retained implants. Peri-implant mucositis was observed most frequently in the ALIPS type (21.9%), but the biological complications did not differ significantly with the prosthetic type. The most common mechanical complication was loss of retention in the cement type of prosthesis (30.4%) and screw loosening in the ALIPS type (43.8%). Implant complications varied with position (maxilla or mandible) and implantation timing (period from tooth extraction to implant placement). Conclusions: The complications of implants placed in the anterior region were affected by different factors but did not differ significantly with the type of the retention.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherMosby-Year Book-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHDental Implants* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHDental Prosthesis Retention-
dc.subject.MESHDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHDental Restoration Failure*-
dc.subject.MESHEsthetics, Dental-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.titleComplication rates for various retention types in anterior implant-supported prostheses: A retrospective clinical study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Dentistry (치과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Periodontics (치주과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorByoung-Heon Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBo-Ah Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeong-Ho Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoung-Taek Kim-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.018-
dc.contributor.localIdA04081-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01718-
dc.identifier.eissn1097-6841-
dc.identifier.pmid32336540-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391320301542-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChoi, Seong Ho-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor최성호-
dc.citation.volume125-
dc.citation.number2-
dc.citation.startPage273-
dc.citation.endPage278-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, Vol.125(2) : 273-278, 2021-02-
Appears in Collections:
2. College of Dentistry (치과대학) > Dept. of Periodontics (치주과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.