Long-term Clinical Success of Minimally and Moderately Rough Oral Implants

Jimbo, Ryo; Albrektsson, Tomas

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000205

Cited by 60 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tooth replacement utilizing implant-supported prosthetic devices has been demonstrated to be a predictable treatment modality based on 50 years of clinical experience and long-term follow-up studies [1-3]. The present trend is to utilize one-stage and early/immediate loading protocols in order to speed up procedures and reduce patient discomfort [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A One-year Follow-up Study of a Tapered Hydrophilic Implant Design Using Various Placement Protocols in the Maxilla

Zwaan¹,

Bogaerde²,

Sahlin

et al. 2016

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To study the clinical/radiographic outcomes and stability of a tapered implant design with a hydrophilic surface when placed in the maxilla using various protocols and followed for one year.Methods:Ninety-seven consecutive patients treated as part of daily routine in two clinics with 163 tapered implants in healed sites, in extraction sockets and together with bone augmentation procedures in the maxilla were evaluated after one year in function. Individual healing periods varying from 0 to 6 months had been used. Insertion torque (IT) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements were made at baseline. Follow-up RFA registrations were made after 6 and 12 months of loading. The marginal bone levels were measured in intraoral radiographs from baseline and after 12 months. A reference group consisting of 163 consecutive straight maxillary implants was used for the comparison of baseline IT and RFA measurements.Results:Five implants failed before loading, giving an implant survival rate of 96.9% and a prosthesis survival rate of 99.4% after one year. The mean marginal bone loss after one year was 0.5 mm (SD 0.4). The mean IT was statistically significantly higher for tapered than for straight reference implants (41.3 ± 12.0 Ncm vs 33.6 ± 12.5 Ncm, p < 0.001). The tapered implants showed a statistically insignificantly higher mean ISQ value than the straight references implants (73.7 ± 6.4 ISQ vs 72.2 ± 8.0 ISQ, p=0.119). There was no correlation between IT and marginal bone loss. There was a correlation between IT and RFA measurements (p < 0.001).Conclusion:The tapered implant showed a high survival rate and minimal marginal bone loss after one year in function when using various protocols for placement. The tapered implant showed significantly higher insertion torque values than straight reference implants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A One-year Follow-up Study of a Tapered Hydrophilic Implant Design Using Various Placement Protocols in the Maxilla

Zwaan¹,

Bogaerde²,

Sahlin

et al. 2016

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When scrutinizing the literature there is clear evidence that modern, moderately rough surfaces present with higher implant survival rates than minimally rough or rough implant surfaces. The comparative analysis of incidence of “peri‐implantitis” with different types of surfaces is very problematic, since “peri‐implantitis” is defined in so many different ways without agreement what is and what is not “disease.” De Bruyn and colleagues performed a comparative study of bone loss rates around different surfaces as surrogate for “peri‐implantitis.” It was concluded that whereas minimally rough surfaces displayed an average MBL at 5 years or more of 0.86 mm, moderately rough surfaces displayed 1.01 mm and rough surfaces 1.04 mm of average MBL.…”

Section: Introduction: the Roma Meeting January 8–10th 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the multifactorial cause for bone loss and the heterogeneity of the analyzed studies made it very difficult to draw unequivocally strong conclusions regarding the effect of implant surface roughness on bone loss over time . Furthermore, one modern implant design does have slightly more bone loss than others at 5 years, a fact that influences the summed bone loss of moderately rough surfaces. However, this particular design yielded this somewhat greater bone loss only during the first year after which there was a steady state; hence it is a good implant system with excellent 10 year clinical results, despite skewing the bone loss statistics somewhat at 5 years of follow up.…”

Section: Introduction: the Roma Meeting January 8–10th 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Peri‐Implantitis”: A Complication of a Foreign Body or a Man‐Made “Disease”. Facts and Fiction

Albrektsson

Canullo

Cochran

et al. 2016

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

Self Cite

166

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral implants may lose bone or even display clinical failure. However, progressive bone loss threatening implant survival is rare and limited to a percent or two of all implants followed up over 10 years or more, provided that controlled implant systems are being used by properly trained clinicians. There is very little evidence pointing to implants suffering from a defined disease entity entitled "peri-implantitis." Marginal bone loss around implants is in the great majority of cases associated with immune-osteolytic reactions. Complicating factors include patient genetic disorders, patient smoking, cement or impression material remnants in the peri-implant sulcus, bacterial contamination of the implant components and technical issues such as loose screws, mobile components or fractured materials. These reactions combine to result in cellular responses with the end result being a shift in the delicate balance between the osteoblast and the osteoclast resulting in bone resorption. However, the great majority of controlled implants display a foreign body equilibrium resulting in very high survival rates of the implants over long term of follow-up.

show abstract

“…The use of dental implants as intraosseous supports for different designs of prosthetic constructions demonstrates high rates of success both in 5 and in 10 years prospective [1][2][3][4]. Such method of treating the patients with symptoms of partial and full adentia, according to previous studies, usually exceeds 90% level of success [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Reduction Levels from Superimposition Perspective: Pilot Study among Ukrainian Implantology Practice

Goncharuk-Khomyn

Keniuk

2018

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the possibility and efficiency of using adapted peri-implant bone evaluation method based on the principle of graphical superimposition and compare it to the possibilities of using sagittal sections of CBCT results to register the dynamics of peri-implant bone changes during the first year of implant functioning. Material and Methods: 108 pairs of DICOM data sets were selected and pre-anonymized and coded in Planmeca Romexis ® Viewer software. Each pair of datasets consisted of a CBCT file, obtained immediately after the installation of a dental implant, and one year after its operation. The first method of peri-implant bone changes evaluation was carried out by analyzing the sagittal sections of the CBCT data from the mesial and distal sides of the implant. The second method was followed by original algorithm, which included specific steps of superimposition of graphical images. Results: Superimposition method helped to establish volumetric parameter of circular bone reduction around dental implants after 1 year of their functioning. Such average values for the maxillary distal implants were 3.547 mm3, maxillary frontal implants -3.118 mm3, mandibular distal implants -2.614 mm3, mandibular frontal implants -2.456 mm 3. Correlation values between averages of vertical bone loss parameters and volumetric bone loss parameters riches r=0.954. Among all patients the highest peri-implant bone reduction rates were observed in the distal and frontal areas of the maxilla, even though statistical difference among such parameters of implants installed at the areas of mandible and maxilla was not significant (p > 0.05). Such observation was established during the analysis of results obtained both by digital sagittal cross section from CBCT results and by superimposition method. Conclusion: Using the superimposition principle allows us to evaluate the individual indicator of volumetric bone loss at the peri-implant region. The possibility of taking into account the parameters of bone tissue volume reduction, instead of just geometrical parameter of bone height, allows to individualize the parameters of bone loss among patients of different prosthetic rehabilitation group.

show abstract

Long-term Clinical Success of Minimally and Moderately Rough Oral Implants

Abstract: The dental implant systems commercially available today have good long-term clinical success in terms of survival and marginal bone loss.

Cited by 60 publications

References 46 publications

A One-year Follow-up Study of a Tapered Hydrophilic Implant Design Using Various Placement Protocols in the Maxilla

A One-year Follow-up Study of a Tapered Hydrophilic Implant Design Using Various Placement Protocols in the Maxilla

“Peri‐Implantitis”: A Complication of a Foreign Body or a Man‐Made “Disease”. Facts and Fiction

Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Reduction Levels from Superimposition Perspective: Pilot Study among Ukrainian Implantology Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About