Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
System Implants (system + implant)
Kinds of System Implants Selected AbstractsMarginal Bone Loss at Implants: A Retrospective, Long-Term Follow-Up of Turned Brånemark System® ImplantsCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 1 2009Odont Lic, Solweig Sundén Pikner DDS ABSTRACT Background: Lately, presence of progressive bone loss around oral implants has been discussed. Purpose: The aim of this study was to report in a large patient group with different prosthetic restorations marginal bone level and its change as measured in radiographs obtained from prosthesis insertion up to a maximum 20 years in service. Further, it also aimed to study the impact of gender, age, jaw, prosthetic restoration, and calendar year of surgery. Materials and Methods: Out of 1,716 patients recorded for clinical examination during 1999, 1,346 patients (78.4%) could be identified. A total of 640 patients (3,462 originally installed Brånemark System® implants, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) with a follow-up of ,5 years were included in the study, while patients with continuous overdentures and augmentation procedures were not. Distance between the fixture/abutment junction (FAJ) and the marginal bone level was recorded. Results: The number of implants with a mean bone level of ,3 mm below FAJ increased from 2.8% at prosthesis insertion to 5.6% at year 1, and 10.8% after 5 years. Corresponding values after 10, 15, and 20 years were 15.2, 17.2, and 23.5%, respectively. Implant-based bone loss was as a mean 0.8 mm (SD 0.8) after 5 years, followed by only minor average changes. Mean bone loss on patient level followed a similar pattern. Disregarding follow-up time, altogether 183 implants (107 patients) showed a bone loss ,3 mm from prosthesis insertion to last examination. Significantly larger bone loss was found the older the patient was at surgery and for lower jaw implants. Conclusions: Marginal bone support at Brånemark implants was with few exceptions stable over years. [source] Turned Brånemark System® Implants in Wide and Narrow Edentulous Maxillae: A Retrospective Clinical StudyCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2 2008Bertil Friberg DDS ABSTRACT Background: The available jawbone volume is regarded as one of the most important factors when assessing the prognosis of oral implants in the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla. Purpose: The aim of the current investigation was to retrospectively evaluate and compare the outcome of implants placed in edentulous maxillae with either wide or narrow jaw shapes. The marginal bone loss and implant cumulative survival rates (CSRs) were calculated and analyzed with special reference to smoking habits. Materials and Methods: The study included 75 individuals with edentulous maxillae, of which 33 patients exhibited wide (group A) and 42 patients exhibited narrow jaw shapes (group B). A total of 506 turned Brånemark System® (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) implants were inserted (226 in group A and 279 in group B) and followed clinically up to 7 years. Smoking habits were recorded. Radiographs were obtained at connection of prostheses, and at the 1- and 5-year follow-up visit. The marginal bone loss was calculated for the groups and analyzed using t -test. Results: Twenty-eight implants were lost during the study period, revealing implant CSRs at 7 years of 94.6% (11/226) and 93.6% (17/279) for wide and narrow crests, respectively. No difference in marginal bone loss was seen between the two groups, although a trend toward more bone loss was recorded for patients with wide crests. Smoking habits were more common in group A (45%) than in group B (31%). During the first year of function, smokers lost significantly more marginal bone than nonsmokers (p = .0447), albeit this difference did not prevail (p > .05) at the end of the study period. Conclusions: The implant CSRs at 7 years were equally good for the two groups of patients with various jaw shapes. Initially, smokers showed significantly more marginal bone loss than nonsmokers. [source] Immediate Loading of Brånemark System Implants®: A Comparison Between TiUniteTM and Turned Implants Placed in the Anterior MandibleCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 4 2006Kjell-Krister Fröberg DDS ABSTRACT Purpose:, The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment outcome of TiUniteTM - and turned-surfaced Brånemark System® (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) implants when applying immediate loading of cross-arch designed fixed partial dentures in the anterior mandible. Materials and Methods:, Fifteen patients with edentulous mandibles participated in the study. In one half of the jaw, between the exit of the nerve-vessel bundle and the midline, one type of implant was placed and in the remaining half the other type. The implants were loaded the day of surgery via a fixed, temporary supra-construction. Ten days later, the permanent one was screw retained to the implant pillars. Results:, The present 18-month clinical trial failed to demonstrate any differences regarding healing and cumulative success rate of an an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) and a turned (turned) one when implants in the anterior mandible were exposed to functional load within 24 hours after installation. Conclusion:, A high predictability regarding the treatment outcome for immediately loaded Brånemark implants in the anterior mandible was observed. Furthermore, no difference between the traditional turned and the an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) could be observed. However, it has to be stressed that all implants (irrespective of surface) were placed in the anterior mandible and also that all the patients demonstrated a high level of oral hygiene. [source] A Three-Year Follow-Up Report of a Comparative Study of ITI Dental Implants® and Brånemark System® Implants in the Treatment of the Partially Edentulous MaxillaCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2004Per Åstrand DDS ABSTRACT Background: Many longitudinal studies of different implant systems have been published but few controlled randomized investigations have been reported. A 1-year report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implant System® implants (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) and Brånemark System® implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) has been published by the present authors. This paper is a 3-year follow-up of that randomized study. Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of fixed partial prostheses supported by ITI or Branemark implants. The outcome was evaluated primarily in terms of survival rates and changes in marginal bone level. Material and Methods: The study group comprised 28 patients with anterior residual dentition in the maxilla. The patients were provided with two to four implants on each side of the dentition and were randomly allocated to Brånemark implants or ITI implants; 77 ITI implants and 73 Brånemark implants were inserted. After 6 months abutment connections were made to both ITI and Brånemark implants. All patients were provided with fked partial prostheses of gold-ceramic. The patients were followed up annually with clinical and radiographic examinations for 3 years. Results: Two Brånemark implants and two ITI implants were lost. The Brånemark implants were lost before loading whereas the ITI implants were lost because of periimplantitis. The survival rate for both groups was 97.3%. The mean marginal bone level of the Brånemark implants was situated 1.8 mm from the reference point at both the baseline and the 3-year examinations. The corresponding values for the ITI implants were 1.4 mm at baseline and 1.3 mm after 3 years. There was no significant difference between the implant systems with regard to bone level or bone level change. A steady state of the marginal bone level was calculated to have been reached after 3 years for 95.5% of the Brånemark implants and 87.1% of the ITI implants. Periimplantitis (infection including pus and bone loss) was observed with seven ITI implants but with none of the Brånemark implants. This difference was statistically significant. Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were found between the implants studied, except for the frequency of periimplantitis, which was higher for the ITI implants. The survival rates were high, and the marginal bone loss was small for both systems. [source] Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone, and maximum torque and resonance frequency values at dental implant placementJOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 12 2006I. TURKYILMAZ summary, The aim of this study was to determine the bone density in the designated implant sites using computerized tomography (CT), the fastening torque values of dental implants, and the implant stability values using resonance frequency analysis. Further aim was to evaluate a possible correlation between bone density, fastening torque and implant stability. Eighty-five patients were treated with 158 Brånemark System implants. CT machine was used for preoperative evaluation of the jawbone for each patient, and bone densities were recorded in Hounsfield units (HU). The fastening torque values of all implants were recorded with the OsseoCare equipment. Implant stability measurements were performed with the Osstell machine. The average bone density and fastening torque values were 751·4 ± 256 HU and 39·7 ± 7 Ncm for 158 implants. The average primary implant stability was 73·2 ± 6 ISQ for seventy implants. Strong correlations were observed between the bone density, fastening torque and implant stability values of Brånemark System TiUnite MKIII implants at implant placement (P < 0·001). These results strengthen the hypothesis that it may be possible to predict and quantify initial implant stability and bone quality from pre-surgical CT diagnosis. [source] Clinical Experience of TiUniteÔ Implants: A 5-year Cross-Sectional, Retrospective Follow-Up StudyCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 2010Bertil Friberg DDS ABSTRACT Background: Little is known of the long-term clinical and radiographic performance of moderately rough surface implants. Purpose: The aim of the present retrospective investigation was to study two pioneer cohorts of patients, that is, the first patients to receive Brånemark System® implants with a moderately rough surface (TiUniteÔ, Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) at the present clinic. TiUnite implants were inserted either in compromised bone sites in a mixed-mouth concept together with turned implants or used solely. Patients were followed up over a period of 5 years with regard to implant survival and the marginal bone response. Materials and Methods: Patients who received both implant types (mixed group) comprised 41 subjects, and the second group (TiUnite group) comprised 70 subjects. A total of 110 turned and 68 TiUnite implants were placed in the mixed group, and 212 TiUnite implants in the TiUnite group. Follow-up radiographs were obtained at prosthesis placement and at the 1- and 5-year check-ups, and examined by independent observers. Results: One turned (0.9%) and two TiUnite (2.9%) implants failed in the mixed group, and three implants (1.6%) failed in the TiUnite group, indicating no significant differences between surfaces or groups (p < .05). The mean marginal bone loss at 5 years was 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm, also indicating no significant differences for the two implant types tested in the mixed group. Conclusions: Cumulative survival rates for the two implant surfaces were favorable at 5 years, and the marginal bone loss was low and similar for both implant surfaces. [source] Marginal Bone Loss at Implants: A Retrospective, Long-Term Follow-Up of Turned Brånemark System® ImplantsCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 1 2009Odont Lic, Solweig Sundén Pikner DDS ABSTRACT Background: Lately, presence of progressive bone loss around oral implants has been discussed. Purpose: The aim of this study was to report in a large patient group with different prosthetic restorations marginal bone level and its change as measured in radiographs obtained from prosthesis insertion up to a maximum 20 years in service. Further, it also aimed to study the impact of gender, age, jaw, prosthetic restoration, and calendar year of surgery. Materials and Methods: Out of 1,716 patients recorded for clinical examination during 1999, 1,346 patients (78.4%) could be identified. A total of 640 patients (3,462 originally installed Brånemark System® implants, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) with a follow-up of ,5 years were included in the study, while patients with continuous overdentures and augmentation procedures were not. Distance between the fixture/abutment junction (FAJ) and the marginal bone level was recorded. Results: The number of implants with a mean bone level of ,3 mm below FAJ increased from 2.8% at prosthesis insertion to 5.6% at year 1, and 10.8% after 5 years. Corresponding values after 10, 15, and 20 years were 15.2, 17.2, and 23.5%, respectively. Implant-based bone loss was as a mean 0.8 mm (SD 0.8) after 5 years, followed by only minor average changes. Mean bone loss on patient level followed a similar pattern. Disregarding follow-up time, altogether 183 implants (107 patients) showed a bone loss ,3 mm from prosthesis insertion to last examination. Significantly larger bone loss was found the older the patient was at surgery and for lower jaw implants. Conclusions: Marginal bone support at Brånemark implants was with few exceptions stable over years. [source] Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Study of 133 Edentulous Patients Older than 79 YearsCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 4 2004Ingela Engfors DDS ABSTRACT Background: An increasing number of elderly patients are treated with implants, but results for the elderly patient in terms of implant success and adaptation to implant prostheses are contradictory. Objective: To retrospectively study the 5-year clinical and radiologic performances of fixed implant-supported prostheses placed in edentulous elderly patients and to compare those results with the results of using similar prostheses in a control group of younger patients. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised 133 edentulous patients who were 80 or more years of age and who were consecutively treated with fixed implant-supported prostheses between January 1986 and August 1998. Altogether 761 Brånemark System® implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) were placed in 139 edentulous jaws. The control group comprised 115 edentulous patients who were younger than 80 years and who were treated consecutively from March 1996 to November 1997 with similar prostheses. In this group 670 implants were placed in 118 edentulous jaws. Information was collected from all postinsertion visits, including the fifth annual checkup, and changes of marginal bone levels were analyzed from intraoral radiographs. Results: The 5-year cumulative survival rate (CSR) for implants in the maxilla was 93.0% in the study group and 92.6% in the control group; the corresponding CSRs for implants in the mandible were 99.5% and 99.7%. The most common complications for patients in the study group were soft tissue inflammation (mucositis) and cheek and lip biting (p < .05) whereas resin veneer fractures were the most common complications for the control group. Overall 5-year marginal bone loss for the study group was 0.7 mm (standard deviation [SD], 0.45) in the upper jaw and 0.6 mm (SD, 0.50) in the lower jaw. Differences in bone levels and bone loss between the two groups did not reach significant levels (p > .05). Conclusions: Implant treatment in the elderly patients showed treatment results comparable to those observed in younger age groups. However, indications of more problems with adaptation could be observed and were reflected in more postinsertion problems. Cleaning problems and associated soft tissue inflammation (mucositis) as well as tongue, lip, and cheek biting were significantly more often observed among the elderly patients (p < .05). [source] A Three-Year Follow-Up Report of a Comparative Study of ITI Dental Implants® and Brånemark System® Implants in the Treatment of the Partially Edentulous MaxillaCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2004Per Åstrand DDS ABSTRACT Background: Many longitudinal studies of different implant systems have been published but few controlled randomized investigations have been reported. A 1-year report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implant System® implants (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) and Brånemark System® implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) has been published by the present authors. This paper is a 3-year follow-up of that randomized study. Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of fixed partial prostheses supported by ITI or Branemark implants. The outcome was evaluated primarily in terms of survival rates and changes in marginal bone level. Material and Methods: The study group comprised 28 patients with anterior residual dentition in the maxilla. The patients were provided with two to four implants on each side of the dentition and were randomly allocated to Brånemark implants or ITI implants; 77 ITI implants and 73 Brånemark implants were inserted. After 6 months abutment connections were made to both ITI and Brånemark implants. All patients were provided with fked partial prostheses of gold-ceramic. The patients were followed up annually with clinical and radiographic examinations for 3 years. Results: Two Brånemark implants and two ITI implants were lost. The Brånemark implants were lost before loading whereas the ITI implants were lost because of periimplantitis. The survival rate for both groups was 97.3%. The mean marginal bone level of the Brånemark implants was situated 1.8 mm from the reference point at both the baseline and the 3-year examinations. The corresponding values for the ITI implants were 1.4 mm at baseline and 1.3 mm after 3 years. There was no significant difference between the implant systems with regard to bone level or bone level change. A steady state of the marginal bone level was calculated to have been reached after 3 years for 95.5% of the Brånemark implants and 87.1% of the ITI implants. Periimplantitis (infection including pus and bone loss) was observed with seven ITI implants but with none of the Brånemark implants. This difference was statistically significant. Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were found between the implants studied, except for the frequency of periimplantitis, which was higher for the ITI implants. The survival rates were high, and the marginal bone loss was small for both systems. [source] Provisional Implants: A Clinical Prospective Study in 45 Patients, from Implant Placement to Delivery of the Final BridgeCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 3 2004Par-Olov Östman DDS ABSTRACT Background: Protocols for submerged healing of dental implants often require the patient to have no teeth until suture removal and to wear a removable prosthesis during the remaining healing period. This may be inconvenient for the patient, and healing may be influenced negatively by the removable prosthesis. Purpose: The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants (PIS) to provide patients with a provisional fixed bridge during the healing of permanent implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty female and 25 male patients were consecutively included in the study. The 45 patients were treated for either partial (16 patients) or total (29 patients) edentulism in the maxilla. The permanent implants were placed first; as many PIS as possible were then installed between the permanent implants. After suturing, impressions from which to manufacture provisional bridges (to be cemented to the PIS) were taken. The patients were monitored with clinical and radiographic follow-up from implant placement to delivery of the final prosthesis. Results: Five (2.2%) of the 230 permanent Brånemark System® implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) did not integrate. None of the failures could be related to the presence of PIS between the permanent implants. Seven PIS failed during the observation period. In addition, 17 (9%) of the 192 PIS showed mobility at the second-stage surgery although they had supported the provisional bridges without clinical symptoms. Forty-four of 45 patients showed stabile PI bridges at the time of second-stage surgery. Conclusion: Based on our experiences we concluded that provisional implants can be successfully used to provide patients with a fixed provisional bridge during the healing of permanent implants. [source] Fixed Mandibular Restorations on Three Early-Loaded Regular Platform Brånemark ImplantsCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 4 2001Hugo De Bruyn DDS ABSTRACT Background: Originally, the Brånemark System was used as a two-stage surgical procedure. Comparable clinical results have made one-stage and early-loading concepts possible alternatives in the edentulous mandible. From the patient's point of view, the financial aspect of implant treatment is important. In an attempt to decrease financial burden, the reduction of surgical interventions and reduction of the number of implants could be considered. Purpose: This prospective multicenter study evaluated (1) the 1-and 3-year success rates of implants loaded within 1 month after one-stage surgery with a fixed 10- to 12-unit bridge on three regular platform Brånemark System implants in the mandible, (2) the outcome of the prosthetic treatment, and (3) the opinion of patients regarding the treatment procedure. Materials and Methods: Of 20 patients, 19 received five implants in the mandible, of which three were functionally loaded with the one-stage technique (group 1). The loaded implants were inserted in a tripodal position, one implant in the symphysis and two located anterior of the mental foramen in the bicuspid area. Two additional implants were inserted for safety reasons but were not intended to be included in the restoration. These two additional implants served as either an unloaded one-stage control implant (group 2) or an unloaded control implant installed with the submerged technique (group 3). Immediately after surgery, the implants were loaded with a relined denture. The patients received a 10- to 12-unit prosthetic reconstruction an average 31 days (range, 4-53 d) after surgery. Implant stability was clinically checked at 3, 12, and 36 months. Radiographs were taken at corresponding follow-up visits to calculate bone-to-implant level and marginal bone resorption. Results: Six of 60 functionally loaded implants (10%) and 3 of 20 prostheses (15%) failed within the first year. The cumulative implant failure rate in group 1, both after 1 and after 3 years, was 9.5%. No implant failure occurred in the control groups 2 and 3. The average marginal bone level measured at 1 and 3 years was 1.6 mm (SD = 0.8 mm) and 2.1 mm (SD = 0.2 mm), respectively, for group 1; 1.5 mm (SD = 1.3 mm) and 2.4 mm (SD = 0.6 mm), respectively, for group 2; 0.8 mm (SD = 1.4 mm) and 0.7 mm (SD = 0.9 mm), respectively, for group 3. Conclusions: The results of treatment using three regular platform Brånemark System implants supporting a fixed mandibular arch reconstruction were less favorable than the outcome that can be expected with a standard four- to six-implant with one-stage surgery. [source] | ||||||||||