|
Abstract
2006, Vol. 77, No. 2, Pages 203-210
, DOI 10.1902/jop.2006.040346
(doi:10.1902/jop.2006.040346)
Long-Term Evaluation of Hollow Screw and Hollow Cylinder Dental Implants: Clinical and Radiographic Results After 10 Years Gerdien Telleman,* Henny J.A. Meijer,†‡ and Gerry M. Raghoebar†*Faculty of Medical Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. †Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Medical Center Groningen. ‡Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen. Correspondence: Prof. H.J.A. Meijer, Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. Fax: 31-0-50-3611136; e-mail: h.j.a.meijer@kchir.umcg.nl. Background: In 1988, an implant manufacturer offered a new dental implant system, with a wide choice of hollow cylinder (HC) and hollow screw (HS) implants. The purpose of this retrospective study of HS and HC implants was to evaluate clinical and radiographic parameters of peri-implant tissue and to analyze surgical and prosthetic aftercare. Methods: A total of 89 HS and 26 HC implants in 38 edentulous patients were available for complete evaluation. The patients were treated with overdentures stabilized by two or four implants. The follow-up period was 10 years. Results: The results of the clinical evaluation showed a mean sulcus probing depth of 3.3 ± 1.3 mm (range = 2 to 10 mm). The mean radiographic bone loss was 2.2 ± 2.1 mm (range = 0.1 to 12.2 mm). One implant (HS) was removed during the osseointegration period. Three other implants (two HS and one HC) in three patients had to be removed after 10 years. The survival rate of the HS implant (96.6%) was comparable to the HC implant (96.1%). The success rate of the HS implant (93.3%) was slightly more favorable compared to the HC implant (88.5%). The HS and HC implants met the Albrektsson criteria of success. Conclusions: HS and HC implants provide a stable base for long-term support of a mandibular overdenture. Furthermore, it is important to monitor peri-implant bone level by taking annual radiographs and measuring probing depth, especially after prolonged service. KEYWORDS: Aftercare, dental implants, long-term study, mouth, edentulous, overdenture Cited byHenny J. A. Meijer, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Rutger H. K. Batenburg, Arjan Vissink. (2009) Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a ten-year prospective randomized study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009. CrossRef Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro, Ana Lucia Machado, Eunice Teresinha Giampaolo, Ivone Lima Santana, Carlos Eduardo Vergani. (2008) Dual Path: A Concept to Improve the Esthetic Replacement of Missing Anterior Teeth with a Removable Partial Denture. Journal of Prosthodontics 17:7, 586-590 Online publication date: 1-Nov-2008. CrossRef Margareta Hultin, Ai Komiyama, Björn Klinge. (2007) Supportive therapy and the longevity of dental implants: a systematic review of the literature. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18, 50-62 Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007. CrossRef Marc Quirynen, Marcelo Abarca, Nele Van Assche, Myron Nevins, Daniel van Steenberghe. (2007) Impact of supportive periodontal therapy and implant surface roughness on implant outcome in patients with a history of periodontitis. Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 34:9, 805 CrossRef Ilser Turkyilmaz, Tolga F. Tözüm, Celal Tumer, Esma Nida Ozbek. (2006) A 2-Year Clinical Report of Patients Treated With Two Loading Protocols for Mandibular Overdentures: Early Versus Conventional Loading. Journal of Periodontology 77:12, 1998-2004 Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006. Abstract
| Full Text
| PDF (2357 KB)
| PDF Plus (307 KB)
|
|
|