Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

Laney, William R.

doi:10.11607/jomi.2017.4.gomi

Cited by 76 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study assumed the abutment platform as reference for probing depth. However, most studies use the gingival margin as landmark (Canullo et al, ; Koutouzis et al, ; Molina et al, ), according to the well‐established definition of probing depth (Laney, ). The anterior region is more related to esthetics and to the clinical importance of the studied outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

Praça¹,

Teixeira

Rêgo³

2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the influence of abutment disconnections and reconnections on peri‐implant marginal bone loss. Material and methods Twenty‐four participants received single‐unit implants and were randomly assigned into one of the two groups: the definitive abutment group (DEF), in which the definitive abutments were connected at the same time as the implant was inserted; and as a control, the healing abutment group (HEA), in which the healing abutments were disconnected and reconnected three times, at 8, 10, and 12 weeks after surgery. Peri‐implant marginal bone level was measured through radiographic follow‐up performed immediately after the surgery (baseline), at 8 weeks and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Implant stability and peri‐implant health were assessed by resonance frequency analysis and peri‐implant probing, respectively. Results At the end of 2 years, the mean bone level was −0.18 ± 0.12 mm for the DEF group and −0.13 ± 0.13 mm for the HEA group, resulting in a cumulative bone loss of −0.61 ± 0.10 mm and −0.81 ± 0.15 mm, respectively, with no statistical difference between groups. Bone level changes showed statistically significant differences only between 0 and 2 months (DEF: −0.70 ± 0.12 mm; HEA: −0.36 ± 0.10 mm) and between 2 and 6 months (DEF: −0.11 ± 0.11 mm; HEA: −0.65 ± 0.14 mm). No differences were observed between the groups for implant stability, probing depth, and bleeding on probing. Conclusion Immediate connection of the prosthetic abutments did not reduce bone loss in comparison with three disconnections of the healing abutments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

Praça¹,

Teixeira

Rêgo³

2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This observation was previously described by Taylor in 1989 . The biomechanical reasoning for this phenomenon is based on Wolff's Law, which is defined as “principle of bone healing and/or remodeling based upon the understanding that bone remodels in response to physical stress by depositing bone in locations of increased stress and resorbing bone in areas of little or no stress.” The stability of the mucosal tissue around each machine‐surfaced abutment was also noted, even in areas where there was minimal or no attached gingiva. This finding was also observed by other authors .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A 30‐Year Follow‐Up of a Patient with Mandibular Complete‐Arch Fixed Implant‐Supported Prosthesis on 4 Implants: A Clinical Report

Balshi

Wolfinger

Balshi

2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandibular complete‐arch fixed implant‐supported prostheses are recognized as one of the earliest and most popular prostheses in implant dentistry. This prosthesis was the main focus in the early era of osseointegration. Despite its widespread popularity, few clinical reports have described long‐term follow‐up greater than 10 years for this type of prosthesis. This report describes a 30‐year follow‐up of a patient who underwent treatment for a mandibular complete‐arch fixed implant‐supported prosthesis with 4 machined surfaced implants, opposing a maxillary complete denture. This report documents a variety of photographs and radiographs taken over a period of 30 years to compare bone levels at various stages of care and maintenance, including de novo bone formation underneath the distal cantilevers due to functional loading. The biologic and biomechanical response to this treatment protocol and long‐term clinical observations and prosthodontic outcome and maintenance needs are also addressed.

show abstract

“…The term “complication” has never appeared in the authoritative “Glossary of prosthodontic terms” and the latest edition defines “failure” as “the inability of a prosthesis to produce the expected desired outcome” (ACP, ). Another authoritative source, that is, The glossary of oral and maxillofacial implants, endorsed by the ITI International Team for Implantology, propose that a complication is “an unexpected deviation from a normal treatment outcome” (Laney, ). However, “normal treatment outcome” is a figment of imagination because a treatment outcome depends on a range of factors and interindividual premises and “normal” is an indefinite word.…”

Section: Harmful Incident Alternatively Named Adverse Event Relatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral health professionals must use the correct terminology when explaining risks for complications and undesirable health outcomes as a basis for informed consent for clinical treatment

Jokstad¹

2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glossary of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

Cited by 76 publications

References 0 publications

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

A 30‐Year Follow‐Up of a Patient with Mandibular Complete‐Arch Fixed Implant‐Supported Prosthesis on 4 Implants: A Clinical Report

Oral health professionals must use the correct terminology when explaining risks for complications and undesirable health outcomes as a basis for informed consent for clinical treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About