Evaluation of Mandibular Posterior Single Implants With Two Different Surfaces: A 5‐Year Comparative Study

Abstract

Despite the anatomic and biomechanical limitation in the mandibular posterior area, mandibular posterior single implants showed a high CSR during the observation period. Mandibular posterior single implants can be an effective and reliable treatment modality that is not affected by the surface treatment, position, or length and diameter of the implant.

Cumulative survival rate and complication rates of single‐tooth implant; focused on the coronal fracture of fixture in the internal connection implant

“…The material properties and design of an implant system can affect its ultimate success (16). Moreover, the abutment/interface design can influence the fatigue and fracture strength of implants (17,18).…”

Evaluation of Single‐Tooth Implants in the Second Molar Region: A 5‐Year Life‐Table Analysis of a Retrospective Study

“…Comparisons of CSRs in the present study between the short versus long and standard‐diameter versus wide‐diameter implants corroborate the results reported by Jung et al 10 Both studies suggested that no significant differences in survival rates should be expected for short versus long implants, which in the present study amounted to 100% versus 95.1% and to 93.8% versus 96.8% for standard‐diameter versus wide‐diameter implants, respectively. It is noteworthy how well the short implants performed, despite the anatomic and biomechanical challenges in the second molar region.…”

“…Cochran et al 29 did not report whether the implants were placed in the anterior or posterior section of the mouth and whether they were single crowns or splinted. Considering that a single implant could be disadvantageous, and the force of occlusion increases toward the posterior area, especially in the second molar region, 10 it is difficult to conclude that the surface treatment affected the outcomes and that the results of the present study are less favorable than comparable reports. Also, the exclusion criterion for heavy smokers was more lenient in the present study.…”

“…Consequently, the use of single‐tooth implants for second molar reconstructions appear to be a preferred treatment. Although it may be argued that missing second molars should not be replaced, 8 adverse consequences of not replacing second molars, such as the disturbance of a balanced occlusion, supra‐eruption of the opposing dentition, and disharmony in chewing patterns, may argue in favor of reconstruction of missing second molars 9,10 . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long‐term cumulative survival rate (CSR) for single‐tooth implants placed in the second molar region and to evaluate the effect of associated factors including placement in the maxilla versus the mandible, using a one‐stage protocol versus a two‐stage protocol, and considering the diameter and length of the implant.…”

Avaliação da adaptação marginal em pilares pré-fabricados e das tensões transmitidas a implantes por infra-estrutura metálica em viga I em função da inclinação dos implantes distais e do número de pilares

“…O uso de implantes dentários em pacientes total ou parcialmente desdentados tornou-se um tratamento previsível com resultados a longo prazo (Berglundh et al, 2002, Pjetursson et al, 2004, Jung et al, 2008.…”