Crestal bone loss in ultrashort implants: retrospective study on two different type of fixture.

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Osseointegration Pub Date : 2021-07-06 DOI:10.23805/JO.2021.13.02.5
L. Malchiodi, F. Zotti, G. Capocasale, L. Merlino, T. Moro, M. Zanini, P. Nocini
{"title":"Crestal bone loss in ultrashort implants: retrospective study on two different type of fixture.","authors":"L. Malchiodi, F. Zotti, G. Capocasale, L. Merlino, T. Moro, M. Zanini, P. Nocini","doi":"10.23805/JO.2021.13.02.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim This was to assess variation of mean crestal bone loss (CBL) when two different types of ultrashort implants are placed in the upper or in the lower jaw and to evaluate differences in terms of success and survival rates. \nMaterials and methods 99 ultrashort implants were retrospectively evaluated assessing differences at three different time-points (placement, prosthetic loading, end of follow-up) in terms of CBL in the upper and lower jaw. Correlations between CBL and diameter, platform switching, site of placement (upper or lower), type of implants, clinical crown/implant ratio and anatomical crown/implant ratio were statistically performed and success and survival rate were assessed. \nResults Statistically significant correlations were found between CBL and implant diameter, kind of screw and anatomical crown/implant ratio at the end of follow up. No correlation was highlighted between CBL and platform switching, and site of placement (upper or lower jaw). Survival and success rates were comparable and were found to be 96.37% in the upper jaw and 94.46% in the mandible. \nConclusion CBL in ultrashort implants is an issue deserving great attention, therefore to know features and behaviours of different ultrashort implants in different quality of bone and clinical conditions represents a cut above to obtain and maintaining success in this particular kind of rehabilitation.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2021.13.02.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim This was to assess variation of mean crestal bone loss (CBL) when two different types of ultrashort implants are placed in the upper or in the lower jaw and to evaluate differences in terms of success and survival rates. Materials and methods 99 ultrashort implants were retrospectively evaluated assessing differences at three different time-points (placement, prosthetic loading, end of follow-up) in terms of CBL in the upper and lower jaw. Correlations between CBL and diameter, platform switching, site of placement (upper or lower), type of implants, clinical crown/implant ratio and anatomical crown/implant ratio were statistically performed and success and survival rate were assessed. Results Statistically significant correlations were found between CBL and implant diameter, kind of screw and anatomical crown/implant ratio at the end of follow up. No correlation was highlighted between CBL and platform switching, and site of placement (upper or lower jaw). Survival and success rates were comparable and were found to be 96.37% in the upper jaw and 94.46% in the mandible. Conclusion CBL in ultrashort implants is an issue deserving great attention, therefore to know features and behaviours of different ultrashort implants in different quality of bone and clinical conditions represents a cut above to obtain and maintaining success in this particular kind of rehabilitation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超短种植体的冠骨丢失:两种不同类型固定装置的回顾性研究。
目的评估两种不同类型的超短种植体在上颌或下颌放置时平均嵴骨损失(CBL)的变化,并评估其成功率和存活率的差异。材料和方法回顾性评估99个超短种植体在三个不同时间点(放置,假体装载,随访结束)在上颌和下颌CBL方面的差异。统计CBL与直径、平台切换、放置位置(上或下)、种植体类型、临床冠/种植体比和解剖冠/种植体比的相关性,并评估成功率和存活率。结果随访结束时,CBL与种植体直径、螺钉种类、解剖冠/种植体比均有统计学意义。CBL与平台切换和放置位置(上颌或下颌)之间没有相关性。生存率和成功率相当,上颌为96.37%,下颌骨为94.46%。结论超短种植体的CBL是一个值得重视的问题,了解不同类型的超短种植体在不同骨质量和临床条件下的特点和行为是获得和保持这种特殊康复成功的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Osseointegration
Journal of Osseointegration DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sealing ability of a bioceramic sealer used in combination with cold and warm obturation techniques Screw-retained restoration of a facially shifted postextraction implant in the esthetic zone with immediate provisionalization Evaluation of marginal bone loss around SLActive implants by CBCT using different implant dimensions and surgical approaches: A clinical and radiological prospective study A minimally invasive approach to osseo-disintegrate implants via thermal energy. An in-vivo pilot study Biomechanical behavior of the dental implant macrodesign in mandibular implant-supported overdentures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1