Astra Tech and Brånemark System Implants: A Prospective 5‐Year Comparative Study. Results after One Year

Åstrand, Per; Engquist, Bo; Dahlgren, Simon; Engquist, Eva; Feldmann, Hartmut; Gröndahl, Kerstin

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00087.x

Cited by 94 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This loss begins at the neck of the implant and spreads to the first thread of the body of the implant or to the first contact between the bone and the rough surface of the implant (3). Peri-implant bone reabsorption depends on a number of factors such as the surface of the neck (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) and reduction of the implant platform (11)(12)(13). There is no agreement regarding the influence of performing surgery in one or two steps (14)(15)(16) or of the cylindrical or conical morphology of the neck (3,4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Aloy-Prósper¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review is made of the publications on the marginal bone loss of implants with a polished neck, rough neck with microthreading, and rough neck without microthreading. A PubMed search was carried out with the following key words: machined neck implant, polished neck implant, marginal bone loss, covering the period between January 1998 and March 2009. Inclusion was limited to those human clinical studies involving a minimum follow-up of 12 months, and registering the level of bone loss from the time of placement of the implant or prosthetic restoration to the end of follow-up. For most of the authors there were no significant differences in marginal bone loss between polished neck and rough neck implants. On the other hand, implants with a rough neck and microthreading showed significantly less bone loss than those with a polished neck or with a rough neck without microthreading. The survival rate of the implants with a polished neck ranged from 87% to 97.7%, versus 94.5% to 100% for those with a rough neck, and 100% for the rough neck implants with microthreading. No peri-implant disease was registered in the different studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Aloy-Prósper¹,

Maestre-Ferrín²,

Peñarrocha‐Oltra³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported high clinical success rates for titanium grit-blasted implants, up to 10 years after implantation 30,31 . Comparative clinical studies gave higher marginal bone levels and survival rates for TiO2 grit-blasted implants than for machined turned implants 32,33 . Wennerberg et al 13 demonstrated with a rabbit model that grit-blasting with TiO2 or Al2O3 particles gave similar values of bone-implant contact, but drastically increased the biomechanical fixation of the implants when compared to smooth titanium.…”

Section: Roughening Of Implants By Grit-blastingmentioning

confidence: 95%

Surface characteristics of titanium dental implants for Rapid osseointegration

Surender¹,

K²,

Nath³

et al. 2011

IJDA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The pullout strength implant, widely studied in the Medical Orthopedics, is multifactorial and is related to bone mineral density, with the implant design and surgical technique, and it is proportional to thread surface in contact with the bone tissue, to avoid its releasing and classifies it as a property of stability of the screw 12 . Nowadays, there are a few available reports in the literature about the tensile strength of dental implants, which it could certainly contribute to the study of primary stability and its relation to the design of implants, where its proper selection is imperative to decrease the magnitude, quantity, and type of loads imposed on the implant / bone interface 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of implant design and bone density in primary stability

Oliscovicz¹,

Shimano²,

Marcantonio³

et al. 2013

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the influence of the format and surface treatment of implants, as well as the substrate used in primary stability. Methods: Thirty-two Conexão ® implants were used: 8 conical (CC) (11.5 x 3.5 mm) and 24 cylindrical (11.5 x 3.75 mm) -8 external hexagon implants without surface treatment (MS), 8 external hexagon implants with double Porous treatment (MP), 8 internal hexagon implants with Porous treatment (CA). They were inserted in Nacional ® polyurethane in three densities (15, 20 and 40 PCF). The insertion torque (IT) (N.cm) was quantified using the digital Mackena ® torque meter, and the pullout force (PF) (N) by means of axial traction force with a 200 kg load cell, performed in a Universal Test Machine (Emic ® DL-10000) and the Tesc 3.13 software. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test with a significance level of 5%. Results: Difference was observed between groups (p<0.05). Regarding the IT, MP and MS inserted to the substrate 40PCF showed higher values with statistically significant difference with all interactions implants x substrate; the 15 and 20PCF densities was not significant in all groups of implants. MP, MS, CC and CA did not differ significantly, even inserted in a lower density, where CC showed better IT compared with other densities. For PF, the best performance was the interaction implant CA x 40PCF substrate, showing a difference from the other implants inserted in all substrates. Conclusions: The higher bone density and cylindrical implants with surface treatment provides greater IT and PF.

show abstract

Astra Tech and Brånemark System Implants: A Prospective 5‐Year Comparative Study. Results after One Year

Abstract: Abutment connection with Astra Tech implants was simpler than the corresponding surgery with Brånemark System implants and the survival rate of Astra Tech implants was higher than that of Brånemark system implants.

Cited by 94 publications

References 5 publications

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: An update

Surface characteristics of titanium dental implants for Rapid osseointegration

Effect of implant design and bone density in primary stability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About