|
Abstract
June 2005, Vol. 76, No. 6, Pages 1013-1015
, DOI 10.1902/jop.2005.76.6.1013
(doi:10.1902/jop.2005.76.6.1013)
The Clinical Effectiveness of 6 mm Diameter Implants R. AnnerPrivate practice, Tel Aviv, Israel. H. BetterOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. Dr. G. ChaushuOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Background: Five- and 6 mm diameter screw-type endosseous implants have been used for the last decade. While some studies have reported very promising results (94% to 98% success rate), others have demonstrated survival rates below those clinically acceptable (75% to 87%). Moreover, such implants have been associated with increased cervical bone resorption and thread exposure. Methods: Between June 1999 and July 2003, 43 patients received treatment with 6 mm diameter tapered hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants. A total of 45 implants were placed. All patients were recalled annually after implant exposure. One patient was lost to follow-up after 1 year. Forty-four implants were evaluated at the recall examinations. All implants supported a fixed prosthesis; in the majority of patients (35 implants), it was a single-tooth fixed prosthesis. The mean loading time was 23.4 months (range, 1 to 54 months). Results: No implants were lost during the loading period. The overall survival rate was 100%. Crestal bone remodeling was examined using periapical radiographs. After a mean of 23.4 months in function, only one implant presented bone loss beyond the first thread. Conclusions: This study showed that high survival rates can be obtained after prosthetic treatment with 6 mm-wide tapered HA-coated implants. Long-term prospective studies are needed to confirm these results. J Periodontol 2005;76:1013-1015. KEYWORDS: Bone remodeling , bone resorption , dental implants, endosseous , follow-up studies , hydroxyapatite/therapeutic use Cited byNabeel Alsabeeha, Alan G. T. Payne, Rohana K. De Silva, Michael V. Swain. (2009) Mandibular single-implant overdentures: a review with surgical and prosthodontic perspectives of a novel approach. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20:4, 356-365 Online publication date: 1-May-2009. CrossRef Marco Degidi, Adriano Piattelli, Giovanna Iezzi, Francesco Carinci. (2007) Wide-Diameter Implants: Analysis of Clinical Outcome of 304 Fixtures. Journal of Periodontology 78:1, 52-58 Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (178 KB)
| PDF Plus (260 KB) Liran Levin, Paul Sadet, Yoav Grossmann. (2006) A Retrospective Evaluation of 1,387 Single-Tooth Implants: A 6-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Periodontology 77:12, 2080-2083 Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006. Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (139 KB)
| PDF Plus (201 KB) Franck Renouard, David Nisand. (2006) Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clinical Oral Implants Research 17:s2, 35 CrossRef
|
|
|