Randomized multicenter comparison of 2 IMZ and 4 TPS screw implants supporting bar-retained overdentures in 425 edentulous mandibles

Osseointegration: Hierarchical designing encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales

“…In preclinical investigations, such extremely rough surface topography of the TPS surface presented improved osseointegration compared to the turned surfaces [56][57][58]. Unfortunately, the clinical trials seemed to present little or rather negative outcomes with progressive marginal bone loss [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66], resulting in TPS-roughened implant surfaces falling from favor among implant manufacturers.…”

Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: a 10‐year clinical trial

“…One of the first studies concerning overdentures supported by endosseous implants was published by Van Steenberghe et al in 1987. For general application in the edentulous mandible, a treatment concept utilising two or four implants to support a mandibular overdenture has been proposed (Batenburg et al 1998a (with two or four implants in the edentulous mandible) prospective studies have been conducted by Batenburg et al (1998b), Wismeijer et al (1999), Mau et al (2003), Visser et al (2005) and Stoker et al (2007). The survival rate of implants, either placed as a one-or a two-stage procedure, applied to support a mandibular overdenture has been shown to be successful in over 96% of all cases (Batenburg et al 1998a;Buser et al 1999;Heijdenrijk et al 2006).…”

The Influence of Implant Number on Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level and Implant Failures in Mandibular Implant Overdentures. A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

“…Further, related outcomes could not be extracted from nine articles [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] , one article compared different implant systems and opposing dentition was not reported 20 . In one article 21 27 corresponding to (Visser et al 35 ), Batenburg et al 28 , and de Jong et al…”