The rehabilitation of oral defects by osseointegrated implants

Steenberghe, Daniël van; Brånemark, Per‐Ingvar; Quirynen, Marc; Mars, Greet De; Naert, Ignace

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb02321.x

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Autografts applied in conjunction with the placement of endosseous implants have been found to have a higher success rate than other augmentation materials, such as allogenic demineralized or lyophilized bone, in retaining their volume (Breine & Brånemark 1980;van Steenberghe et al 1991;Pinholt et al 1994;Tolman 1995;van Steenberghe et al 1997). Autografts applied in conjunction with the placement of endosseous implants have been found to have a higher success rate than other augmentation materials, such as allogenic demineralized or lyophilized bone, in retaining their volume (Breine & Brånemark 1980;van Steenberghe et al 1991;Pinholt et al 1994;Tolman 1995;van Steenberghe et al 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium barrier

Steenberghe

Johansson

Quirynen

et al. 2003

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has already been shown that occlusive titanium barriers have osteoconductive properties. These barriers, however, cover only a limited surface area and have only been used in animal experiments. The aim of this study was to evaluate bone neogenesis under a pre-shaped titanium barrier placed over the top of the rabbit skull and the top of highly resorbed edentulous upper-jaw bone in patients. Computed tomography (CT) scans made it possible to pre-shape the titanium barrier according to individual bone shape in human experiments. On the rabbit skull, tissue augmentation of up to 6 mm 1 year after barrier placement was observed, while the original thickness of skull bone was on average between 1.5 and 2.5 mm. The bone, which remained histologically immature for 1 year, grew systematically along the titanium surface, illustrating its osteoconductivity. Even after removal of the barrier, on average, 75.3 and 59.4% of the newly created tissue volume was maintained after 3 and 9 months, respectively. Clinical observations on 10 consecutive patients showed that, in those (5/10) in which the barrier remained unexposed for several months, an increase of the jawbone height and width of up to 16 mm could be observed when the barrier was removed after 12-18 months. As in the rabbits at barrier removal, the bone demonstrated a limited degree of mineralization as ascertained from biopsies. This newly formed osteoid tissue allowed the insertion of 33 screw-shaped titanium implants which in most cases (30/33) successfully osseointegrated to support a fixed prosthesis. The surrounding marginal bone level remained stable even up to 5 years after implant placement. Both animal and clinical data demonstrate that guided bone neogenesis under a subperiosteally placed titanium barrier can reach large volumes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium barrier

Steenberghe

Johansson

Quirynen

et al. 2003

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5] The Toronto implant experience introduced osseous integration to the North American dental community in the early 1980's by describing clinical studies that replicated the earlier experiences in Sweden. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] As the number of trained practitioners increased, so did the number of implant manufacturers. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] As the number of trained practitioners increased, so did the number of implant manufacturers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of implant experience by prosthodontists in the United States

Eckert¹,

Koka²,

Wolfinger³

et al. 2002

Journal of Prosthodontics Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subperiosteal implants were used widely in the past, before being abandoned in favour of endosseous implants [4, 21–27, 29–31]. The first subperiosteal implant was placed by G. Dahl in 1941 in the lower jaw of a patient in Sweden; Gershkoff and Goldberg were the first to report clinical cases with mandibular subperiosteal implants in the United States [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The popularity of subperiosteal implants declined in the late 1970s due to the rising popularity of the endosseous implants proposed by Branemark [4, 31]. The reasons for the rapid decline of subperiosteal implants included the need for a double intervention, with impressions of the bony bases taken in the first surgical session; the difficulty of manufacturing and positioning during the second surgical session; and the rather high incidence of failures and complications resulting from this [4, 21, 23–30, 33, 35, 46, 47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Custom-Made Direct Metal Laser Sintering Titanium Subperiosteal Implants: A Retrospective Clinical Study on 70 Patients

Cerea

Dolcini

2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To present a digital technique for the fabrication of custom-made subperiosteal implants and to report on the survival and complication rates encountered when using these fixtures. Methods The data used for this retrospective clinical study were derived from the medical records of five different private dental practices. Inclusion criteria were patients over the age of 60, treated with custom-made direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) titanium subperiosteal implants (Eagle-Grid®, BTK, Dueville, Vicenza) during a two-year period (2014-2015) and restored with fixed restorations; all enrolled patients needed to have complete pre- and postoperative clinical and radiographic documentation, with at least 2 years of follow-up. Exclusion criteria were smoking and bruxism. The main outcomes looked at were implant survival and complications. Results Seventy patients (39 males and 31 females, aged 62-79 years) who had been treated with custom-made DMLS titanium subperiosteal implants were enrolled in this study. After 2 years of follow-up, three implants were lost due to recurrent, untreatable infections; the survival rate was therefore 95.8% (67/70 implants). Four patients reported pain/discomfort/swelling after implant placement; the incidence of immediate postoperative complications was therefore 5.7% (4/70 implants). During the follow-up period, one patient suffered from recurrent infections classified as a biologic complication; the incidence of biologic complications was therefore 1.4% (1/67 surviving implants). Finally, four patients experienced prosthetic problems with their implant-supported restorations during the provisional phase (fracture of the acrylic restoration) and two patients had ceramic chipping of the definitive restoration; the incidence of prosthetic complications was therefore 8.9% (6/67 surviving implants). Conclusions Within the limits of the present study (limited follow-up time and low number of patients treated, retrospective design), the application of custom-made DMLS titanium subperiosteal implants showed satisfactory implant survival (95.8%) and low complication rates. Further studies are needed to confirm the positive outcomes found in this research.

show abstract

The rehabilitation of oral defects by osseointegrated implants

Cited by 29 publications

References 14 publications

Bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium barrier

Bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium barrier

Survey of implant experience by prosthodontists in the United States

Custom-Made Direct Metal Laser Sintering Titanium Subperiosteal Implants: A Retrospective Clinical Study on 70 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About