This study evaluated full-arch rehabilitation of patients with immediately placed implants in terms of the cumulative implant survival rate, risk factors for implant failure, and patient satisfaction. Time-to-event data of 52 completely edentulous jaws (370 implants) were collected using retrospective clinical chart review for the time period from 2008 to 2014. A conventional two stage approach for surgery was adopted to immediately placed implants in the maxilla, and immediate placement and immediate loading protocols for the mandible were followed. The study calculated the 7-year cumulative survival rates (CSR), and a Bayesian hierarchical Cox proportional hazard model was used to measure the effect of covariates. Patient satisfaction on chewing ability, esthetic appearance, and overall satisfaction was also measured with a face-to-face interview survey. Of the total 370 implants, 194 were immediate placement. Two delayed loading maxillary implants failed within the first year, and another one failed in the second year of loading. Two failures were recorded in the first year and one in seven years for the immediate loading mandibular implants. The 1-, 5-, and 7-year CSR of the 370 implants were 0.989 (0.979, 1.000), 0.986 (0.975, 0.998), and 0.978 (0.957, 0.999), respectively. Only the length of the implant affected implant failure (p < 0.05); other patient characteristics, systemic diseases, implant diameter, immediate loading, and immediate placement, did not have an effect on implant failure rates. Patients reported a high degree of satisfaction regardless of their age group or length of the observation period. Immediately placed implant had CSR as high as delayed placed implants, and 7-year CSRs of immediate loading were not significantly different from delayed loading. The procedure also had a high degree of chewing ability, esthetic appearance, and overall satisfaction. The study results suggested that the clinical procedures applied in this study to completely edentulous patients were acceptable rehabilitation procedures.

Since 2009, the National Health Insurance in Korea (NHI) has been implementing a series of policies to expand the scope of dental benefits. This study reviewed the changes in co-payments and dental use patterns before (2008 to 2012) and after (2013 to 2017) the NHI’s dental health insurance reform. The study used Korea Health Panel data of 7681 households (16,493 household members) from a 10-year period (2008–2017). Dental expenditures and equivalent income using square root of household size were analyzed. Dental services were categorized into 13 types and a concentration index and 95% confidence interval using the delta method was calculated to identify income-related inequalities by a dental service. Dental expenditures and the number of dental services used increased significantly, while the proportion of out-of-pocket spending by the elderly decreased. The expenditure ratio for implant services to total dental expenditures increased substantially in all age groups, but the ratio of expenditures for dentures and fixed bridges decreased relatively. The concentration index of implant services was basically in favor of the rich, but there was no longer a significant bias favoring the better-off after the reforms. The dental health insurance reform in Korea appears to contribute not only to lowering the ratio of out-of-pocket to total dental expenses per episode in the elderly but also to improving the inequality of dental expenses.

Objective This study aimed to calculate the distance patients travel to dental clinics, the rate of bypassing nearby dental clinics and the distance covered when bypassing nearby dental clinics, and explored factors associated with patients’ spatial access to dental clinics. Design A secondary data analysis. Setting Korea Health Panel. Participants We included users of dental care services from 2008 to 2011. A total of 2375 patients and 15 978 dental visits were analysed. Primary outcome measures Korea Health Panel data (2008–2011) were used to geocode patients’ and healthcare facilities’ addresses. The distance travelled was calculated using road network information. To analyse the panel data, we adopted a generalised estimating equation: geographical measures on the choice of dental care facility were examined based on sex, age, educational level, equivalent income, treatment details and regional classification. Results The median distance travelled to a dental clinic was 1.8 km, which is farther for rural (8.4 km) than for urban (1.5 km) patients. The bypass rate was 58.9%. Patients bypassing nearby dental clinics travelled 9.6 times farther for dental care (p<0.001). Unlike bypass distance, travel distance was not associated with equivalent income. People with higher education and those with implants/orthodontic treatment were more likely to bypass nearby dental clinics and travelled 1.27 times and 1.17 times farther (p<0.01), respectively. Conclusions Given the spatial barrier to available dental resources, factors associated with spatial access were mostly the same between travel and bypass distance except for equivalent income. The findings of this study suggest that spatial distance acts as a utilisation barrier and demands additional opportunity cost. At the same time, patients’ preferences for services also increase their willingness to bypass nearby dental clinics and travel greater distances.