http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Yuseung Yi (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Yuseung Yi,허성주,곽재영,김성균 대한치과보철학회 2019 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.11 No.6
PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) abutment and prefabricated abutment in Morse taper internal connection type implants after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted with internal type implants of two different manufacturers (Group Os, De). Fourteen assemblies were prepared for each manufacturer group and divided into 2 groups (n=7): prefabricated abutments (Os-P, De-P) and CAD/CAM abutments (Os-C, De-C). The amount of axial displacement and the removal torque values (RTVs) were measured before and after cyclic loading (106 cycles, 3 Hz with 150 N), and the tensile removal force to dislodge the abutments was measured after cyclic loading. A repeated measures ANOVA and a pattern analysis based on the logarithmic regression model were conducted to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the axial displacement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney test was conducted for comparison of RTV reduction% and tensile removal forces. RESULTS. There was no significant difference between CAD/CAM abutments and prefabricated abutments in axial displacement and tensile removal force; however, significantly greater RTV reduction% after cyclic loading was observed in CAD/CAM abutments. The correlation among the axial displacement, the RTV, and the tensile removal force was not significant. CONCLUSION. The use of CAD/CAM abutment did not significantly affect the amount of axial displacement and tensile removal force, but presented a significantly greater removal torque reduction% than prefabricated abutments. The connection stability due to the friction at the abutment-implant interface of CAD/CAM abutments may not be different from prefabricated abutment.
-
Yuseung Yi,Jai-Young Koak,Seong-Kyun Kim,Shin-Jae Lee,Seong-Joo Heo 대한치과보철학회 2018 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.10 No.2
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the fracture of implant component behavior of external and internal type of implants to suggest directions for successful implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data were collected from the clinical records of all patients who received WARANTEC implants at Seoul National University Dental Hospital from February 2002 to January 2014 for 12 years. Total number of implants was 1,289 and an average of 3.2 implants was installed per patient. Information about abutment connection type, implant locations, platform sizes was collected with presence of implant component fractures and their managements. SPSS statistics software (version 24.0, IBM) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS. Overall fracture was significantly more frequent in internal type. The most frequently fractured component was abutment in internal type implants, and screw fracture occurred most frequently in external type. Analyzing by fractured components, screw fracture was the most frequent in the maxillary anterior region and the most abutment fracture occurred in the maxillary posterior region and screw fractures occurred more frequently in NP (narrow platform) and abutment fractures occurred more frequently in RP (regular platform). CONCLUSION. In external type, screw fracture occurred most frequently, especially in the maxillary anterior region, and in internal type, abutment fracture occurred frequently in the posterior region. placement of an external type implant rather than an internal type is recommended for the posterior region where abutment fractures frequently occur.
ScienceON연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
