Minimal treatment options with one-piece implants

Agbaje, Jimoh Olubanwo; Mohamad, EL Moheb; Diederich, Henri

doi:10.29328/journal.acr.1001049

Arch Case Rep

2021

DOI: 10.29328/journal.acr.1001049

|View full text |Cite

Minimal treatment options with one-piece implants

Jimoh Olubanwo Agbaje¹,

EL Moheb Mohamad²,

Henri Diederich³

Abstract: The aim of this publication is to present case reports to show what is possible with pterygoid implants for the rehabilitation of edentulous space in the jaw (maxilla) while avoiding sinus lifts and bone grafting procedures. In addition, the added value of one-piece implants for screwed retention is elucidated.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2021

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Comparing the Primary and Secondary Stability of Compressive One-Piece Implants with Conometric Cap vs. Compressive-M Implants

Shaswar¹,

Al-Zahawi²

2021

JZS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This research was conducted to assess and compare the stability of compressive one-piece implants with conometric caps and compressive-M implants (screw type) at the time of implant insertion, three months, and six months after insertion. Experimental: A total of 15 patients (8 females and 7 males) with a mean age of 54 ± 17.5 years participated in this study. A total of 82 implants from two implant designs (ROOTT Compressive implants with conometric caps and ROOTT Compressive-M implants with screw-type prosthesis) were placed in the lower premolar-molar areas using standard surgical protocols. The implant stability test (IST) readings were clinically measured by the Anycheck implant stability meter in both buccal and lingual directions immediately after insertion of the implant (T0), three months (T1), and six months (T2) after insertion. Results: The results displayed that the highest mean value was 63.17 using IST for Compressive implants with conometric caps on the buccal direction at T2, while the lowest mean value was 52.47 for Compressive-M implants with a screw-type prosthesis at T1. The comparison of mean values of IST showed statistically significant (P<0.05) differences between Compressive implants and Compressive-M implants at T1 and T2 but non-significant differences at T0 in both buccal and lingual directions. The mean IST values for the 39 compressive implants in lingual direction were 61.83 at T0, 59.77 at T1, and 61.57 at T2, while the mean IST values for the 35 Compressive-M implants in the same order were 59.4, 51.2, and 52.13 at T0, T1, and T2, respectively. Conclusion: We found that the stability of Compressive conometric implants is higher than that of Compressive-M implants in both T1 and T2.

show abstract

Comparing the Primary and Secondary Stability of Compressive One-Piece Implants with Conometric Cap vs. Compressive-M Implants

Shaswar¹,

Al-Zahawi²

2021

JZS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Minimal treatment options with one-piece implants

Cited by 1 publication

References 15 publications

Comparing the Primary and Secondary Stability of Compressive One-Piece Implants with Conometric Cap vs. Compressive-M Implants

Comparing the Primary and Secondary Stability of Compressive One-Piece Implants with Conometric Cap vs. Compressive-M Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About