Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Implant Group (implant + group)
Selected AbstractsLocally delivered rhTGF-,2 enhances bone ingrowth and bone regeneration at local and remote sites of skeletal injuryJOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, Issue 1 2001Dr. Sumner The purposes of the present study were to determine if recombinant human transforming growth factor-beta-2 (rhTGF-,2) enhances bone ingrowth into porous-coated implants and bone regeneration in gaps between the implant and surrounding host bone. The implants were placed bilaterally for four weeks in the proximal humeri of skeletally mature, adult male dogs in the presence of a 3-mm gap. In three treatment groups of animals, the test implant was treated with hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA/TCP) and rhTGF-,2 in buffer at a dose per implant of 1.2 ,g (n = 6), 12 ,g (n = 7), or 120 ,g (n = 7) and placed in the left humerus. In these same animals, an internal control implant treated only with HA/TCP and buffer was placed in the right humerus. In a non-TGF-, treated external control group of animals (n = 7), one implant was treated with HA/TCP while the contralateral implant was not treated with the ceramic. In vitro analyses showed that approximately 15% of the applied dose was released within 120 h with most of the release occurring in the first 24 h. The TGF-, treated implants had significantly more bone ingrowth than the controls with the greatest effect in the 12 ,g/implant group (a 2.2-fold increase over the paired internal control (P = 0.004) and a 4-fold increase over the external control (P < 0.001)). The TGF-, treated implants had significantly more bone formation in the gap than the controls with the greatest effect in the 12 and 120 ,g groups (1.8-fold increases over the paired internal controls (P = 0.003 and P = 0.012, respectively) and 2.8-fold increases over the external controls (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively)). Compared to the external controls, the internal control implants tended to have more bone ingrowth (1.9-fold increase, P = 0.066) and had significantly more bone formation in the gap (1.7-fold increase, P = 0.008). Thus, application of rhTGF-,2 to a porous-coated implant-stimulated local bone ingrowth and gap healing in a weakly dose-dependent manner and stimulated bone regeneration in the 3-mm gap surrounding the contralateral control implant, a site remote from the local treatment with the growth factor. © 2001 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. [source] Should edentulous patients be constrained to removable complete dentures?GERODONTOLOGY, Issue 1 2010The use of dental implants to improve the quality of life for edentulous patients doi:10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00294.x Should edentulous patients be constrained to removable complete dentures? The use of dental implants to improve the quality of life for edentulous patients Background:, Nowadays, there is some speculation among dental educators that the need for complete dentures will significantly decrease in the future and that training in their provision should be removed from the dental curriculum. Objective:, To sensitise the reader to the functional shortcomings of complete denture therapy in the edentulous patient and present restorative options including implants to improve edentulous quality of life in these patients. Methods:, Information retrieval followed a systematic approach using PubMed. English articles published from 1964 to 2008, in which the masticatory performance of patients with implant-supported dentures was assessed by objective methods and compared with performance with conventional dentures, were included. Results:, National epidemiological survey data suggested that the adult population in need of one or two complete dentures will increase from 35.4 million adults in 2000 to 37.9 million adults in 2020. Clinical studies have showed that the ratings of general satisfaction were significantly better in the patients treated with implant overdentures post-delivery compared with the complete denture users. In addition, the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on comfort, stability and ability to chew. Furthermore, patients who received mandibular implant overdentures had significantly fewer oral health-related quality of life problems than did the conventional group. Conclusion:, Implant-supported dentures including either complete overdentures or a hybrid prosthesis significantly improve the quality of life for edentulous patients compared with conventional removable complete dentures. Therefore, the contemporary dental practitioner should consider other options as well as conventional removable complete dentures to restore edentulous patients. [source] Turned, Machined Versus Double-Etched Dental Implants In VivoCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2007B. Al-Nawas Priv.-Doz., DrMed, DrMedDent ABSTRACT Background:, Positive effects on the clinical outcome of moderately rough implant surfaces are described. Intercomparison of clinical data, however, is rarely found. Purpose:, The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of two macroscopically identical implants, the one with a turned, machined and the other with an etched surface. Materials and Methods:, In a retrospective cohort study, the included implants followed the criteria: standard surgical protocol, >12 months in situ; minimally rough self-threading implants with a turned, machined surface (Mk IITM Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden], n=210); etched implants of the same macrodesign (3iTM Implant Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA], n=151), length , 10 mm. Clinical data and implant success were rated. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest® (Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) were measured and related to the corresponding implant survival rate in the respective group. Results:, The total number of implants was 361, of which 264 (73%) were subject to clinical reexamination. RFA and Periotest could be recorded in 25% of the implants. Neither clinically relevant nor statistically significant differences between the surface designs were found in the RFA (64 ± 8.6 vs 63 ± 9.7), in Periotest (,2 ± 3.3 vs ,1 ± 5.1), and in mean survival periods (49 months, 95% confidence interval CI]: 46,51 months, for the turned vs 46 months, 95% CI: 43,49 months, for the double-etched implant). After osteoplastic procedures, a significantly higher rate of implant losses in the turned, machined implant group was observed (17 vs 1) with a mean survival period of 43 (40,46) months for the turned and 46 (45,48) months for the double-etched implants. Conclusion:, No difference between implants with two different minimally rough surfaces was found. A positive effect of surface roughness is observed in poor quality bone, but the pivotal proof of this effect is still lacking. [source] A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placementCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2010Jerome A. Lindeboom Abstract Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking. Aim: The objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques. Patients and methods: From January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6±2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7±7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide® CT-guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), dental anxiety using the s-DAI and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-14). Results: Ninety-six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two-phase implants and the after-implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s-DAI), emotional impact (IES-R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement. Conclusions: Differences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group. To cite this article: Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 366,370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x [source] | ||||||||||