Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Machined Implants (machined + implant)
Selected AbstractsA prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2 -blasted surfaceJOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, Issue 1 2001Klaus Gotfredsen DDS Purpose The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether there was a difference between machined and TiO2 -blasted implants regarding survival rate and marginal bone loss during a 5-year observation period. Materials and Methods A total of 133 implants (Astra Tech Dental Implants; Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) were placed in 50 patients at 6 centers in 4 Scandinavian countries. Forty-eight implants were installed in the maxilla and 85 implants in the mandible. A randomization and a stratification were done, so that each fixed partial prosthesis was supported by at least 1 machined and 1 TiO2 -blasted implant. The implant-supported fixed partial prostheses (ISFPP) were fabricated within 2 months after postoperative healing. A total of 52 ISFPP (17 maxillary, 35 mandibular) were inserted. The patients were clinically examined once a year for 5 years. At the annual follow-up, biological as well as technical complications were recorded. Results Of the 133 implants placed, 3 were reported as failed after 5 years of follow-up, resulting in an overall cumulative survival rate of 97.6%. The cumulative implant survival rates were 100% for the TiO2 -blasted implants and 95.1% for the machined implants. No significant difference in survival was, however, found between the machined and TiO2 -blasted implants after 5 years. The mean marginal bone loss in the maxilla was 0.21 ± 0.83 mm (SD) for the machined implants and 0.51 ± 1.11 mm (SD) for the TiO2 -blasted implants during the 5-year observation period. In the mandible, the mean marginal loss was 0.22 ± 1.13 mm for the machined implants and 0.52 ± 1.07 mm for the TiO2 -blasted implants from baseline to the 5-year examination. No significant difference in marginal bone loss between the 2 surface groups was found during the 5-year observation period. Conclusions The present study shows good 5-year results with small ISFPP in the mandible, as well as in the maxilla. No significant differences were found in failure rate and marginal bone loss around implants with a machined rather than a TiO2 -blasted surface. [source] Effects of Implant Design and Surface on Bone Regeneration and Implant Stability: An Experimental Study in the Dog MandibleCLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Issue 1 2001Lars Rasmusson DMD ABSTRACT Background: Previous experimental studies have shown a higher degree of bone-implant contact for surface-enlarged implants compared with machined implants. Yet, there is insufficient evidence that such implants show higher stability and an increased survival rate. Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to study the integration and stability of grit-blasted implants with retention elements on the implant neck, with and without marginal bone defects, compared with machined implants without retention elements. Materials and Methods: After tooth extraction of the mandibular premolars in six dogs, two grit-blasted, partly microthreaded Astra Tech implants and one standard Branemark implant were bilaterally placed in each dog. On one side, 3 ± 3 mm large buccal defects were created, to expose three to four implant threads. The contralateral side served as control, and no defects were made. The animals were sacrificed after 4 months of healing. Implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis at implant installation and after 4 months of healing. Histologic and histomorpho-metric evaluation was made after 4 months of healing. Results: Resonance frequency analysis indicated that all implants in the test and control groups were osseointegrated after 4 months, with a tendency toward higher implant stability for the Astra Tech implants. There was a statistically significant higher increase in resonance frequency for the Astra test implants compared with their corresponding controls. Histology and histomorphometry showed well-integrated implants with varying degrees of bone repair at the defect sites. The greater bone-implant contact for the Astra implants was statistically significant. No significant difference between the implants in amount of bone filling the threads was recorded. Conclusions: The Astra Tech implants tested showed a higher degree of bone,implant contact and higher level of bone regenerated at defect sites compared with the Brånemark implants. Resonance frequency analysis demonstrated a significantly higher increase in the Astra test implants compared with their control groups than did the Brånemark test implants versus their controls. [source] Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: a laboratory studyCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 2 2010Afsheen Tabassum Abstract Objective: The aim of this biomechanical study was to assess the interrelated effect of both surface roughness and surgical technique on the primary stability of dental implants. Material and methods: For the experiment, 160 screw-designed implants (Biocomp®), with either a machined or an etched surface topography, were inserted into polyurethane foam blocks (Sawbones®). As an equivalent of trabecular bone, a density of 0.48 g/cm3 was chosen. To mimic the cortical layer, on top of these blocks short-fibre-filled epoxy sheets were attached with a thickness varying from 0 to 2.5 mm. The implant sites were prepared using either a press-fit or an undersized technique. To measure the primary stability of the implant, both the insertion and the removal torques were scored. Results: Independent of the surgical technique used, both implant types showed an increased insertion and removal torque values with increasing cortical thickness, although >2 mm cortical layer no further increase in insertion torque was observed. In the models with only trabecular bone (without cortical layer) and with a 1 mm cortical layer, both implant types showed a statistically higher insertion and removal torque values for undersized compared with the press-fit technique. In addition, etched implants showed a statistically higher insertion and removal torque mean values compared with machined implants. In the models with 2 and 2.5 mm cortical layers, with respect to the insertion torque values, no effect of either implantation technique or implant surface topography could be observed. Conclusion: The placement of etched implants in synthetic bone models using an undersized preparation technique resulted in enhanced primary implant stability. A correlation was found between the primary stability and the cortical thickness. However, at or above a cortical thickness of 2 mm, the effect of both an undersized surgical approach, as also the presence of a roughened (etched) implant surface, had no extra effect. Besides the mechanical aspects, the biological effect of undersized drilling, i.e. the bone response on the extra insertion torque forces should also be elucidated. Therefore, additional in vivo studies are needed. To cite this article: Tabassum A, Meijer GJ, Wolke JGC, Jansen JA. Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: a laboratory study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 213,220. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01823.x [source] Histological evaluation of oral implants inserted with different surgical techniques into the trabecular bone of goatsCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 4 2007Manal M. Shalabi Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of implant surface topography and surgical technique on bone response. Material and methods: For the experiment, 48 screw-designed implants were used with two different surface finishes, i.e. machined and ,blasted, etched'. The implants were inserted into the left and right medial femoral condyle of eight goats using three different surgical approaches: press-fit (implant diameter=implant bed diamete(r), undersized (implant bed diameter
| | |||||||||