A prospective multicenter study of immediate function of 1-piece implants: A 3-year follow-up report

Sato, Junichi; Watanabe, Goro; Ando, Masami; Shimoo, Yoshiaki; Shizukuda, Kazushige; Kimura, Tomonori; Kobayashi, M.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.001

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their study with a similar shape, immediately loaded one‐piece titanium implant, Sato et al. () calculated values for success grade I with 94.1% after 1 year and 90.3% after 3 years (Sato et al., ). Success grade II amounted to 98.8% after 1 year and 93.6% after 3 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the 1-year survival rate was comparable to one-piece titanium implants, which were also loaded immediately (Östman et al, 2008). However, in a further 3-year study, data of similar shape, immediately loaded one-piece titanium implants were reported, and a survival rate of 100% was obtained (Sato et al, 2014). In addition to implant survival analysis, peri-implant bone loss evaluation and success grading were performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both 1-year success grades (I + II) are significantly lower when compared to a report of immediately loaded two-piece titanium implant systems (98.4%) (Östman et al, 2008). In their study with a similar shape, immediately loaded one-piece titanium implant, Sato et al (2014) calculated values for success grade I with 94.1% after 1 year and 90.3% after 3 years (Sato et al, 2014). Success grade II amounted to 98.8% after 1 year and 93.6% after 3 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One‐piece zirconia oral implants for single‐tooth replacement: Three‐year results from a long‐term prospective cohort study

Kohal

Spies

Bauer

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This 3-year report of a prospective long-term cohort investigation aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a one-piece zirconia oral implant for single-tooth replacement. Materials and Methods:Sixty-five patients received a 1-stage implant surgery with immediate temporization. Standardized radiographs were taken at implant insertion, after 1 year, and after 3 years to monitor peri-implant bone levels. A univariate analysis of the association of different baseline parameters on marginal bone loss from implant insertion to 36 months was performed. Soft-tissue parameters were evaluated at prosthesis insertion, after 6 months, after 1 year, and at the 3-year follow-up. Results:After 3 years, six posterior site implants were lost, giving a cumulative survival rate of 90.8%. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.45 mm; 35% of the implants lost at least 2 mm bone, and 22% more than 3 mm. The univariate analysis did not identify any parameter associated with marginal bone loss. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, and bleeding index increased over 3 years, and plaque index decreased. Conclusions:The low survival rate of the presented ceramic implant and especially the high frequency of advanced bone loss are noticeable but remain unexplained. K E Y W O R D Sclinical investigation, oral implants, prospective, zirconia

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One‐piece zirconia oral implants for single‐tooth replacement: Three‐year results from a long‐term prospective cohort study

Kohal

Spies

Bauer

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, divergence in results arose when it came to clinical trials. Some studies [14][15][16] suggested that there was less MBL in OPI than TPI, while others reported opposite conclusions and clinical unacceptable MBL happened to OPI within the first year after implant loading: 2.4 mm (SD 1.5mm) [17] and 2.1 mm (SD 1.3mm) [18] To the best of our knowledge, only two systematic reviews [19,20] have analyzed the survival rates or MBL for one-and two-piece Titanium implants up to date. Nevertheless, different conclusions were arrived at.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic performance of one-piece and two-piece implant:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu

Wang

2021

J Prosthodont Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this system review was to evaluate clinical and radiographic performance of one-piece implant (OPI) and two-piece implant (TPI). Methods: Electronic database searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and OpenGrey databases up to May 2019. Two authors individually screened the related literatures according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Main clinical outcomes included failure and complication rates. Radiographic outcomes were peri-implant bone loss between baseline and last available follow-up. Results: Finally, 11 articles reporting 10 different studies were included in this review. No statistically significant difference (P = 0.22) in risk of failure was found between the two types of implants (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.16-1.53). Peri-implantitis accounted for most failures and complications and there was no statistically significant difference in risk of peri-implantitis no matter after 1 year follow-up (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.37-3.53, P = 0.81) or at 2-3 years (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 0.23-16.63, P = 0.54). With regard to the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants, subgroup meta-analysis by platform switching versus platform matching showed a significant MBL-reducing effect for TPI when compared to OPI (WMD: 0.21mm, 95% CI: 0.07-0.36mm, P = 0.004) in the platform-switching subgroup, while no significant difference in MBL was observed between the two groups in the platform-matching subgroup (P = 0.67). Conclusions: The results of this review suggested that OPI and TPI showed similar short-term survival rates and incidences of complications. Nevertheless, TPI with platform switching may be a better option to reduce peri-implant bone loss.

show abstract

“…Inconsistent data exist on the clinical performance of OPI. While some studies have reported promising survival and crestal bone stability, other studies have demonstrated both a high incidence of failure and CBL around OPI …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of one‐piece zirconia dental implants: A systematic review

ArRejaie

Al-Hamdan

Basunbul

et al. 2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endosseous implants are routinely used by dental clinicians in order to restore lost or missing teeth. Currently, there are numerous different implant systems and materials that are available that offer significant physical properties. [1][2][3] The most commonly-used implant system is the commercially-pure titanium dental implant that is still commonly used among dental practitioners. 4,5 Data from recent systematic reviews suggest that titanium implants that support single crowns offer a high implant survival and success rates of approximately 97.2% and 95.2% over a period of 5 and 10 years of placement, respectively. 6 In addition, a high rate of success of 95.6% and 93.1% was also observed for fixed dental prostheses over a period of 5 and 10 years, respectively. 6Although the number of cases reported for hypersensitivity due to titanium dental implants are less, a few research studies suggest that such metals in the oral cavity experience corrosion as a consequence of electrochemical redox reaction that might incite allergic reactions. 7-9 Moreover, some studies have documented that a small amount of titanium could be seen in soft tissues that surround dental implants. 10,11 Esthetics are of major concern among both young and middle-aged cohorts. Therefore, AbstractThe aim of the present review was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic performance of one-piece zirconia implants (O-PZI). This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines that addressed the following focused question: What is the overall clinical and radiographic performance of O-PZI? The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases were searched. Six clinical studies were included. For studies evaluating O-PZI comparedwith one-piece titanium implants, zirconia implants showed higher crestal bone loss (CBL) in both the studies. However, one study demonstrated a high failure rate compared to titanium dental implants, while one study demonstrated comparable survival rates between zirconia and titanium dental implants. For studies evaluating O-PZI for the restoration of single crown and fixed dental prostheses, O-PZI showed comparable bone loss and survival rates for single crowns and fixed dental prostheses. Two studies were included that compared O-PZI with two-piece zirconia (T-PZI).One study showed a higher CBL and low survival rate for O-PZI compared to T-PZI, whereas the other study demonstrated comparable CBL and survival rates between O-PZI and T-PZI. It is still debatable whether O-PZI demonstrate better clinical performance when compared with titanium implants or two-piece design. K E Y W O R D Screstal bone loss, dental implant, one-piece zirconia implant, survival rate, titanium implant

show abstract

A prospective multicenter study of immediate function of 1-piece implants: A 3-year follow-up report

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

One‐piece zirconia oral implants for single‐tooth replacement: Three‐year results from a long‐term prospective cohort study

One‐piece zirconia oral implants for single‐tooth replacement: Three‐year results from a long‐term prospective cohort study

Clinical and radiographic performance of one-piece and two-piece implant:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical performance of one‐piece zirconia dental implants: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About