A Retrospective, Multicenter Study on a Novo Wide‐Body Implant for Posterior Regions

Vandeweghe, Stefan; Ackermann, A; Bronner, John; Hattingh, André; Tschakaloff, Alex; Bruyn, Hugo De

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00253.x

Cited by 31 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Five RCTs, 2,14-17 twenty-six CCTs, 4,7,8, and forty-two retrospective analyses 3,5,6,9, were included in the meta-analysis. Sixteen studies 5,14,18,19,23,27,33,34,39,45,54,57,59,60,63,77 were multicenter.…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients were submitted to grafting procedures at the implant site in thirty-five studies. 2,9,[14][15][16]18,20,21,23,26,29,33,36,37,39,41,42,44,45,53,57,[60][61][62][63][64][67][68][69][72][73][74][76][77][78] Implants were inserted exclusively in maxillae in seventeen studies 2,16,20,27,31,[33][34][35]37,38,52,53,59,66,71,72,74 and in mandibles in six stu...…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson²,

Wennerberg³

2015

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson²,

Wennerberg³

2015

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Good results have been reported for this implant under various conditions 69 . The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of short, wide diameter implants in the posterior area as an alternative for bone grafting or sinus lifting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

A Wide-Body Implant as an Alternative for Sinus Lift or Bone Grafting

Vandeweghe

Ferrerre

Tschakaloff³

et al. 2011

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSDr Stefan Vandeweghe has a grant supported by Southern Implants (Irene, South Africa). ABSTRACTPurpose:. The aim was to evaluate the outcome of a short wide body implant in the atrophic posterior jaw without grafting procedure. Materials and methods:Patients treated with a tapered wide body implant of 8-9 mm width and 7-9 mm length (Max® implant, Southern Implants®, Irene, South Africa) were recalled to scrutinize implant survival. Preoperative cone beam CT images were analysed to measure bone height in reference to the mandibular canal and sinus floor.Results: 57 implants were inserted in 18 males and 24 females following a 2-stage procedure and delayed loading. The mean follow-up was 15 months (SD 10,range 1-32), with 63.2% of the implants having at least 1 year and 26.3% having at least 2 years follow-up. 46 implants were inserted in the posterior maxilla and 11 in the mandible. 15 were placed in an extraction socket and 42 in healed bone. 13 implants were supporting a single crown.2 implants failed, resulting in a survival rate of 96.5%, respectively 90.9% and 97.8% for mandible and maxilla. This was not affected by gender, jaw, immediate or delayed placement, implant diameter and length or the use of a bone substitutes.The mean preoperative bone height was 7.21mm in maxilla and 8.76mm in mandible. In 41 cases, implant length surpassed available bone height. Conclusions:Despite the compromised bone condition and height, the survival of 96.5% is comparable to normal implants and an alternative for grafting procedures. This is probably related to the enlarged implant surface area and the good primary stability.

show abstract

“…Where one or more socket walls are missing or have a significant dehiscence, socket preservation grafting [24,36] and delayed implant placement are more appropriate. Since placing IMIs does not eliminate post-extraction alveolar ridge remodeling [37,38], it is recommended that IMIs be submerged by up to 2 mm on the buccal aspect to compensate for the expected buccal crestal bone loss [29,33,39]. This is particularly important if the thickness of the buccal wall is <2 mm [40,41].…”

Section: Managing Socket Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, if the IRB was wide mesio-distally, Fugazzotto used a small diameter trephine to free a plug of IRB bone, and subsequently condensed it apically as an autogenous graft using osteotomes, elevating the sinus membrane and providing a tented space in the sinus to receive the implant apex [59,64]. In some sites with limited subantral bone, sinus elevation grafting can be avoided or minimized by using a short, ultra-wide (>6 mm) implant [39,65]. However, if the buccal bone is thin and the implant platform is not submerged 2 mm below the crest as recommended by the manufacturer, unwanted crestal resorption may be the result.…”

Section: Managing Socket Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Deporter¹

2017

Austin J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a follow-up to a recent systematic literature review with metaanalysis of outcomes when using immediate molar implants (IMIs). An attempt has been made to offer guidelines to assist clinicians in their successful use of this treatment approach. The surgeon's ability, proper case selection, socket anatomy, and specific modifications in osteotomy preparation all are crucial in avoiding errors, complications and implant failure. While long-term data are sparse, IMIs appear to be a viable treatment option if the offered guidelines are strictly followed.Keywords: Tooth extraction; Dental implantation; Endosseous; Guided tissue regeneration IntroductionWe have recently published a systematic review and metaanalysis of literature published from November 2008 to May 2015 reporting outcomes following immediate molar dental implant (IMI) placement [1]. The search format was that recommended by the Academy of Osseointegration Workshop on the State of Science on Implant Dentistry (SSID) [2,3]. The search language used was similar to that employed in a previous review conducted by others on IMI data up to October 2008 [4]. Criteria for qualification of studies to be included in the analysis were: i) at least 10 IMIs; ii) minimum followup 1 year in function; iii) clearly reported/interpretable survival and/or success (based on crestal bone loss) data; and iv) use of rootform, solid, titanium or titanium alloy implants. Fifteen publications fulfilling these criteria were identified, none of which were doubleblind, randomized, controlled prospective clinical trials. Recognizing this limitation, our analysis supported Atieh's earlier conclusion [4] that it is possible to obtain good outcomes with IMIs with the added proviso that those of diameters >6 mm may be at greater risk of failure.There are obvious advantages for patients and clinicians in providing immediate implant replacement of molar teeth. These include fewer and potentially less invasive surgical procedures, greater patient acceptance, less chair time, lower treatment fees, shorter treatment times, and potentially fewer risks. The clinician needs to be aware, however, that achieving success with IMIs is affected by many factors. In the present paper, we have attempted to formulate guidelines for the successful use of IMIs. Considerations will include case selection, reason for extraction, quality and quantity of keratinized tissue, socket anatomy and how it impacts osteotomy preparation, implant design, and initial implant stability. Discussion Case selectionAs with all technique-sensitive surgical procedures, not all clinicians will be capable of successfully employing IMI procedures because of infrequent usage of the procedure, failure to follow

show abstract

A Retrospective, Multicenter Study on a Novo Wide‐Body Implant for Posterior Regions

Abstract: Within the limitations of the study, the Max implant demonstrated a survival rate of 95.7% and stable bone conditions after a year, irrespective of loading or surgical protocol. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the soft and hard tissue changes in time.

Cited by 31 publications

References 35 publications

Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A Wide-Body Implant as an Alternative for Sinus Lift or Bone Grafting

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About