A New Implant Designed to Maximize Contact With Trabecular Bone: Survival to 18 Months

Morris, Harold F.; Winkler, Sheldon; Ochi, Shigeru; Kanaan, Ahmad A

doi:10.1563/1548-1336(2001)027<0164:anidtm>2.3.co;2

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers have investigated the clinical effects of the characteristics of implant design to determine the optimal shape of a dental implant. Morris et al (2001) assessed short-term (18 months) clinical performance of the newly designed implants and concluded that wide-diameter implants and longer implants exhibited higher survival rates. Chun et al (2002) performed FEA to determine an optimal thread shape.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini‐implant

Motoyoshi

Yano

Tsuruoka

et al. 2005

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biomechanical influences of primary factors on titanium mini-implant, which is used as an anchorage for orthodontic tooth movement, were quantified using the three-dimensional finite element method. Six types of finite element models were designed to show various thread pitches from 0.5 to 1.5 mm. Three models were designed with abutment and three other models without abutment. A traction force of 2 N was applied to the head of the mini-implant or abutment to be at 45 degrees to the bone surface. No remarkable differences were observed in the stress distribution patterns regardless of thread pitch variance. However, the stress distribution was remarkably different between models with abutment and without abutment. The maximum stress of the model with abutment and thread pitch 0.5 mm was the least as compared with the other models. Areas of high-level stress were obviously smaller than in the models without abutment. The plots of the displacement distributions of the models with abutment also presented significant pattern differences as compared with the models without abutment. The high-level area was localized to the head of the implant and the abutment in models with abutment. Therefore, the existence of the abutment is significantly useful in decreasing the stress concentration on the bone, while the effect of thread pitch was uncertain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini‐implant

Motoyoshi

Yano

Tsuruoka

et al. 2005

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of this study on marginal bone loss related to an implant system with Morse taper (DENTSPLY Friadent ANKYLOS®) are slightly better (0.12 mm/year) than those presented in the literature [8,11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…The reported results came from 100 dentists from 32 research centres in the USA, Korea, and Taiwan [11]. Chou et al, evaluating over 1,500 DENTSPLY Friadent ANKYLOS® implants during three years after prosthetic loading, found that peri-implant bone loss was 0.15 mm after the first 12 months, 0.48 mm after 24 months, and 0.64 mm after 36 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient

Szymańska¹,

Szpak²

2017

J Pre Clin Clin Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Szymańska J, Szpak P. Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient. J Pre-Clin Clin Res. 2017; 11(1): 30-34. doi: 10.26444/jpccr/74465 Abstract Introduction. One of the criteria of implant therapy success is marginal bone loss. The objective of the study was to assess the correlation between peri-implant marginal bone loss and implant-abutment connection systems used in the same patient, as well as other specific characteristics of implant treatment. The initial research hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants with different implant-abutment connection systems placed in the same patient. Materials and method. Marginal bone loss was assessed around implants with two different types of implant-abutment connection: with conical (Type I) and with internal hexagonal (Type II) in the same patient. The study included 28 patients aged 37-66 years. Results. Marginal bone loss around Type I implants was 0.112 mm/month before loading with prosthetic restorations, and 0.010 mm/month after loading, while for Type II implants it reached, respectively, 0.123 mm/month and 0.030 mm/month. Marginal bone loss after loading with prosthetic restorations was 11 times lower for Type I implants and 4 times lower for Type II implants. Evaluation of marginal bone loss in the studied patient groups was made on the basis of orthopantomographic radiographs. Conclusions. Implants with conical implant-abutment connection are significantly more favourable to osseointegration than those with internal hexagonal connection. As marginal bone loss is faster before loading implants with prosthetic restorations than after loading, it is advisable to consider early loading if the necessary clinical conditions are met.

show abstract

“…Augmenter le diamètre et la longueur des mini-implants améliore la stabilité primaire [17] . Cependant, elle se fait au détriment de sa qualité de «passe partout».…”

Section: Spécial Chirurgie De L'enfant 48unclassified

L’apport de l’ancrage squelettique en orthodontie

Davarpanah

Caraman²,

Khoury³

et al. 2007

Actual. Odonto-Stomatol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pour assurer au mieux les mouvements orthodontiques, l'orthodontie a besoin de s'appuyer sur un ancrage fiable, le plus fixe possible. Dans de nombreux cas, l'ancrage intra-buccal ou même extra-buccal ne peut répondre aux exigences d'ancrage du praticien orthodontiste. En assurant un ancrage fixe, l'ancrage squelettique permet la mise en oeuvre de mouvements complexes tels que ingressions ou déplacements d'un groupe de dents. Cet article décrit l'ancrage squelettique, son développement historique, ses différentes applications, les paramètres à considérer, ses avantages puis ses limitations. Un cas clinique est présenté afin de montrer les différentes étapes du traitement ainsi que le résultat obtenu. Orthodontistes et impantologistes ont là une occasion de collaborer plus étroitement que par le passé. Cette interaction devrait permettre des traitements et des résultats considérés jusque-là comme impossibles à mener et à obtenir. MOTS CLÉS SPÉCIAL CHIRURGIE DE L'ENFANTArticle available at http://dx

show abstract

A New Implant Designed to Maximize Contact With Trabecular Bone: Survival to 18 Months

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini‐implant

Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini‐implant

Marginal bone loss around dental implants with various types of implant-abutment connection in the same patient

L’apport de l’ancrage squelettique en orthodontie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About