hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6

Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study

Muhamed Ajanović   ORCID icon orcid.org/0000-0002-0130-7536 ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo
Adis Hamzić ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo
Sead Sead Redžepagić ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo
Alma Kamber-Ćesir ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo
Lejla Kazazić ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo
Selma Tosum ; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo

Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (245 KB) str. 128-136 preuzimanja: 334* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Ajanović, M., Hamzić, A., Sead Redžepagić, S., Kamber-Ćesir, A., Kazazić, L. i Tosum, S. (2015). Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (2), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
MLA 8th Edition
Ajanović, Muhamed, et al. "Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 2, 2015, str. 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6. Citirano 23.09.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Ajanović, Muhamed, Adis Hamzić, Sead Sead Redžepagić, Alma Kamber-Ćesir, Lejla Kazazić i Selma Tosum. "Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 2 (2015): 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
Harvard
Ajanović, M., et al. (2015). 'Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(2), str. 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
Vancouver
Ajanović M, Hamzić A, Sead Redžepagić S, Kamber-Ćesir A, Kazazić L, Tosum S. Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 23.09.2021.];49(2):128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
IEEE
M. Ajanović, A. Hamzić, S. Sead Redžepagić, A. Kamber-Ćesir, L. Kazazić i S. Tosum, "Radiographic Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Dental Implants in Maxilla and Mandible: One Year Prospective Clinical Study", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 2, str. 128-136, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (245 KB) str. 128-136 preuzimanja: 388* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Ajanović, M., Hamzić, A., Sead Redžepagić, S., Kamber-Ćesir, A., Kazazić, L. i Tosum, S. (2015). Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (2), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
MLA 8th Edition
Ajanović, Muhamed, et al. "Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 2, 2015, str. 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6. Citirano 23.09.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Ajanović, Muhamed, Adis Hamzić, Sead Sead Redžepagić, Alma Kamber-Ćesir, Lejla Kazazić i Selma Tosum. "Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 2 (2015): 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
Harvard
Ajanović, M., et al. (2015). 'Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(2), str. 128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
Vancouver
Ajanović M, Hamzić A, Sead Redžepagić S, Kamber-Ćesir A, Kazazić L, Tosum S. Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 23.09.2021.];49(2):128-136. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6
IEEE
M. Ajanović, A. Hamzić, S. Sead Redžepagić, A. Kamber-Ćesir, L. Kazazić i S. Tosum, "Radiografska procjena gubitka alveolarne kosti oko zubnih implantata u maksili i mandibuli: jednogodišnje prospektivno kliničko istraživanje", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 2, str. 128-136, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/2/6

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Purpose: The aim of the study was to analyze the amount of maxillary and mandibular crestal bone loss around Bredent Sky Blue type of implants of different dimensions one year after implantation. Materials and Methods: 36 implants of diameter 3.5 x 10 mm were inserted in the maxilla and 12 in the mandible. 52 implants of diameter 4.0 x 8 mm were inserted in the maxilla, and 61 in the mandible (two-stage implant surgery). Results: No statistically significant differences were
found between the right and left side of the maxilla and between the right and left side of the mandible at the implant sites regarding distal and mesial bone losses as shown by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Conclusion: Statistically significant differences were found between anterior maxilla, posterior maxilla and anterior mandible and posterior mandible at implant sites regarding distal and mesial bone losses as shown by analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Ključne riječi
Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Resorption; Dental Implants; Maxilla; Mandible

Hrčak ID: 139974

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/139974

▼ Article Information



Introduction

The recovery time for dental implants is similar to physiological healing of bone tissue. The studies of titanium implants have shown that the process of healing can be divided in three phases: osteophilic, osteoconductive and osteoadaptive (1, 2). The success of therapy is surgically, esthetically and functionally predictable only if there is an adequate amount of bone and gingival tissue (3). The amount of crestal bone loss during the first year may affect the sulcus depth and environment for the longevity of the implant (4).

Radiographic analyses have shown that the micro threaded design was superior at minimizing marginal bone loss during stress-free healing and under functional loading. The use of rough-surfaced micro threaded implants is recommended to maintain crestal bone levels (5-8). A rough surface and micro threads at the implant neck not only reduce crestal bone loss but also help with early biomechanical adaptation against loading compared to the machined neck design (8). Some authors have reported greater marginal bone loss with conventional platforms than with platform switching (9-14). This appeared more evident with increasing the extent of implant-abutment mismatching (14).

Implant surgery in posterior regions of upper and lower jaws is not difficult in cases with a satisfactory bone volume of the alveolar process. However, in cases of alveolar atrophy the anatomical limitations with the maxillary sinus cavity and the alveolar nerve canal, the situation becomes more problematic and has to be solved by using different kinds of graft techniques. However, most cases can be successfully solved with the techniques that are available today. (15). According to Sbordone et al, the use of particulate chin bone grafts in sinus lift procedures does not seem to yield optimal outcomes. Milled iliac crest and chin bone tends to remodel around the implant apices, leading to bulging within the sinuses. Grafting sinuses with either chin or iliac crest bone blocks yields the highest implant success rates and stable sinus floors (16). Regarding remodeling in augmented sinus areas, the behavior of the autologous bone from the iliac crest and the xenogenic material was ultimately very similar at the implant apex, even though for bovine bone material the resorption was much slower than that of the autogenous graft. The behavior of autologous bone from the chin seemed similar to that of xenogenic material, probably because of the dense cortical composition of such grafts. The differences between immediate and delayed procedures of implantation, with regard to marginal bone, showed a lesser resorption process of the former as compared with the latter (17). The short-term sinus grafting procedure for dental implant placement performed with freeze-dried allogeneic bone showed an outcome close to that reported for autogenous bone. Performing maxillary sinus augmentation with dry-preserved bone allogeneic materials in block form could be considered even when the residual floor thickness is less than 3 mm (18). Clinicians who plan a fixed prosthesis supported by dental implants placed in the maxillary sinus, with or without bone volume augmentation, should consider the negative remodeling encountered in the autogenous particulate materials, both in the apical and marginal peri-implant aspects. Implants placed in native areas beneath the sinus did not exhibit such behavior; therefore, the procedure seems to be more reliable. Nevertheless, the survival of these implants is quite similar to those placed in augmented areas (19).

Implant placement in the anterior region of the mandible is still the most common indication, especially when using four implants. The bone availability varies depending on the degree of atrophy. Implant placement in the posterior mandible is more often unilaterally in order to avoid a partial denture, or bilaterally after long periods of edentulousness (20). At the maxilla, the front part of alveolar crest to the second premolar is conditionally favorable region for implantation. An unfavorable region for implantation is the posterior maxilla, including the maxillary tuberosity (21).
When installing implants in front region of the maxilla the greatest attention should be paid to the esthetics of the prosthesis (20). Insufficient bone in vestibular-oral dimension is a common problem in treating missing front teeth with implants (3).

The aim of this study was to evaluate crestal bone resorption around dental implants in different regions of maxilla and mandible after one year of functional loading.

Materials and methods

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Dentistry Sarajevo (University of Sarajevo). All the subjects gave their informed consent.

This study was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry Sarajevo (University of Sarajevo), from January 2010 to December 2013.

Inclusion selection criteria were: age > 18 years; both sexes; patients without contraindications for implant placement; patients who gave their informed consent to participate in the study; patients without indications for bone augmentation; completely edentulous or partially dentate patients; sufficient height of the alveolar bone for placement of dental implants of diameter 3.5 x 10 mm and 4.0 x 8 mm.

Exclusion selection criteria were: disease of oral soft tissue; disease and defects of the maxilla and mandible; poor oral hygiene; alcohol consumption; drug addiction; systemic diseases which affect bone metabolism and oral mucosa and impossibility of dental implant placement according the manufacturer’s instructions for any reason.

Forty two patients, 23 males and 19 females, were included in this study. The mean age of patients was 56, ranging in age from 18 to 81 years. Among male patients, 78.3% were partially dentate, while 21.7% were totally edentulous. 94.7% females were partially dentate, only 5.3% were totally edentulous.

A total of 161 implants type Bredent blueSKY® were inserted according to a two-stage surgical protocol. Thirty six implants of diameter 3.5 x 10 mm were inserted in the maxilla and 12 in the mandible. Fifty two implants of diameter 4.0 x 8 mm were inserted in the maxilla and 61 in the mandible. The implants were placed into the mandible and maxilla according to a strict surgical protocol following the manufacturer’s instructions.

After using SKY pilot drill, the Twist-Drill was used to determine depth and direction of the implant. The depth of the drilled hole exceeds the implant length by approx. 0.5 mm. The cylindrical core of the implant was prepared, depending on the bone quality, with the D3-4 for soft and medium hard bones, and with D1-2 drills for hard bone. The depth of the drilled hole exceeded the implant length by approx. 0.5 mm. Finally, the conic-cylindrical preparation of the coronal cavity took place. After healing phase of three months without functional loading, a gingiva former was inserted. After 14 days, the gingiva former was removed and impressions were taken. The time placement of prosthetic restorations on the implants was four months after surgery. All the implants were used as abutments of individual crowns and bridges.

Dental panoramic radiographs were made before surgery, immediately after surgery and after 12 months of functional loading, using Ortopantomograph type Kodak 8000 c, XJAM530. Panoramic images were calibrated using CliniView (version 5.2 Instrumentation Imaging). The measurements were performed using software Kodak dental software 6.11.7.0.

Crestal bone resorption was measured mesially and distally for each implant from the coronal portion of the abutment to the detectable margin of the alveolar bone, immediately after implant placement (point A) and after a year of functional loading (point B) (Figure 1, Figure 2).

Figure 1 Detectable margin of the alveolar bone immediately after implant placement in mandible
ASC_49(2)_128-136-f1
Figure 2 Measurement of crestal bone loss (mesially) after a year of functional loading
ASC_49(2)_128-136-f2

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS v.17 software package (descriptive statistics, ANOVA -test).

Results

Table 1 shows a description of patients regarding gender and smoking habits.

Table 1 Distribution of patients patients regarding gender and smoking habits
Gender
Male
Female
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
Smoking habitsSmokers1043.5842.11842.9
Non-smokers
13
56.5
11
57.9
24
57.1
Total231001910042100

Table 2 shows the frequency of inserted implants in the anterior and posterior region of the mandible and maxilla on the right and left side.

Table 2 Frequency of inserted implant by region of maxilla and mandible
Diameter of implant
3.5 x 10 mm
4.0 x 8 mm
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
RegionMaxilla right front1225.000.0127.5
Maxilla left front1327.100.0138.1
Maxilla right posterior612.52219.52817.4
Maxilla left posterior510.43026.53521.7
Mandible left front48.300.042.5
Mandible right front36.310.942.5
Mandible left posterior48.32824.83219.9
Mandible right posterior12.13228.33320.5
Total48100113100161100

No statistically significant differences in distal as well as in mesial bone losses were found between implant sites on left and right sides of both jaws, for both implant diameters, as reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3 Marginal bone loss after 12 months of functional loading for implant diameter of 3.5x10 mm
Diameter of implant 3.5 x 10 mmnMeanStd. DeviationF p*
Distal resorption (mm)Maxilla right180.600.320.749 0.529
Maxilla left180.620.28
Mandible right40.850.24
Mandible left
8
0.68
0.40
Mesial resorption (mm)Maxilla right180.500.362.191 0.102
Maxilla left180.590.29
Mandible right40.880.30
Mandible left80.770.36

* Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Table 4 Marginal bone loss after 12 months of functional loading for implant diameter of 4.0 x 8 mm
Diameter of implant 4.0 x 8 mmnMeanStd. DeviationF p*
Distal resorption (mm)Maxilla right220.520.410.485 0.693
Maxilla left300.600.44
Mandible right330.490.40
Mandible left
28
0.50
0.36
Mesial resorption (mm)Maxilla right220.530.400.128 0.943
Maxilla left300.540.39
Mandible right330.580.35
Mandible left280.540.36

* Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Table 5 shows statistically significant differences in mean crestal bone loss around dental implants with diameter of 3.5 mm between maxilla front, maxilla posterior, mandible front and mandible posterior. Statistically significant differences were found between maxilla front, maxilla posterior, mandible front and mandible posterior at implant sites regarding distal and mesial bone losses as shown by analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 5 Marginal bone loss after 12 months of functional loading for implant of diameter 3.5x10 mm in different region of maxilla and mandible
Diameter of implant 3.5 x 10 mmnMeanStd. DeviationF p*
Distal resorption (mm)Maxilla front250.670.264.083 0.012
Maxilla posterior110.470.34
Mandible front70.910.22
Mandible posterior50.480.37
Mesial resorption (mm)Maksilla front250.570.323.411 0.026
Maxilla posterior110.490.35
Mandible front70.960.21
Mandible posterior50.600.37

* Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

The highest mean of bone resorption was measured in mandible front distally (M = 0.91), and the mandible front mesially (M = 0.96).

The mean ​​of distal and mesial resorption at implant diameter of 4.0 x 8 mm between regions of the mandible front, mandible lateral and the maxilla lateral were not tested by ANOVA due to insufficient number of cases in the mandible front (n = 1).

Table 6 shows the differences in mean crestal bone loss around dental implants with different diameters. Student′s t-test showed no statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss.

Table 6 The mean and standard deviation of marginal bone loss dependent on different implant diameter
VariableDiameter of implant
3.5 x 10 mm (n=48)
4.0 x 8 mm (n=113)
95% C.I. for Mean
Std. Deviation
95% C.I. for Mean
Std. Deviation
t df p
Distal resorption (mm)
0.642±0.07
0.311
0,529±0.078
0.401
1.92 113.15 0.057
Mesial resorption (mm)0.612±0.090.3420,551±0.0590.3700.98 159 0.331

Discussion

Marginal bone loss is evaluated by means of radiography and is directly associated with the long-term success of implant treatments (22). The most observed loss occurring in mesial or distal sides is considered as the final implant bone loss (23). According to Albrektsson et al, marginal bone level changes in the first year after implant insertion should be less than 1-1.5 mm and the ongoing annual bone loss should be less than 0.2 mm (24). According to some other authors, the critical values of bone loss following one year after implantation have been proposed to be less than 1.5 mm with the mean 0.1 mm annual rate in the following years (25-27). In this study, the measured mean mesial and distal bone loss of the implants was less than the mentioned critical value, be considered a success.

Rasouli Ghahroudi et al. (22) found no significant differences regarding bone loss occurring at the distal and mesial sides of the mandibular and maxillary implants or the maximum bone loss, taking place at these sides between the upper and lower implants. After 1-year loading the mean distal bone loss of mandibular and maxillary implants were 0.759 mm (standard error: 0.088) and 0.615 mm (SE: 0.097), and the mean mesial bone loss of mandibular and maxillary implants was also 0.701 mm (SE: 0.088) and 0.627 mm (SE: 0.097), respectively (22). Hobo et al (28) reported the mean bone loss of 1-1.5 mm for the first year of implant placement. Johansson and Ekfeldt (29) showed a mean bone loss amounting to 0.4 mm at the first year. Jang et al. (30) found bone loss of 0.7 mm after the first year. Mesial crestal resorption ranged from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm and distal crestal resorption ranged from 0.3 mm to 1.3 mm (30). Hürzeler et al. (31) found bone loss of 0.40 mm (± 0.12 mm) within one year.

Several factors influence implant prognosis and can attribute to implant failure: length and diameter of the implant, implant location, implant designs, bone quality, implant surface and the general health of the patient, functional loading (5-14, 32-37). In the present study, the patients with systemic diseases have been excluded and implant prognosis was based on the different implant diameters. The mean marginal bone loss which was measured around dental implants of diameter 4.0 x 8 mm was less than around dental implants of diameter 3.5 x 10 mm, but the differences between these groups were not statistically significant.

Karoussis et al. (35) evaluated and compared the 10-year survival and complication rates of hollow screw, hollow cylinder and angulated hollow cylinder (AHC) ITI® Dental Implants. Complications occurred at 10% of hollow screw implants, while at hollow cylinder implants, the prevalence of peri-implantitis in 10 years was almost three times higher (29%). Angulated hollow cylinder implants presented a complication rate of 12%. Danza et al. (37) reported that crestal bone maintenance around conventionally and immediately loaded modified diameter implants was similar, with slight significant differences in mandible where a lower marginal bone loss was observed.

In this study, we found no significant different bone loss between maxillary and mandibular implants regarding sites. This finding is in agreement with the results obtained in some studies (22, 38, 39). On the contrary, Penarrocha et al (40) and Pham et al. (41) showed more bone loss for maxillary implants compared to mandibular implants.

This study showed more bone loss for anterior implants compared to the posterior ones, which is contrary to the results of Boronat et al. (23). Some authors found no significant differences regarding implants placed at anterior and posterior regions (22, 42).

Conclusion

The assessment of crestal bone loss around implants is necessary for evaluating implant success. This study showed more crestal bone loss for anterior implants compared to the posterior ones, but there was no significantly different crestal bone loss between maxillary and mandibular implants regarding sites, after one year of functional loading.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

1 

Krhen J, Canjuga I, Jerolimov V, Krhen T. Implant stability measurement six weeks after implantation. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2009;43(1):45–51.

2 

Marx RE, Ehler WJ, Peleg M. “Mandibular and facial reconstruction” rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Bone. 1996 Jul;19(1) Suppl:59S–82S. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(96)00137-8 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8830998

3 

Živko-Babić J, Jakovac M, Carek A, Lovrić Ž. Implantoprosthetic therapy of a missing front tooth. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2009;43(3):234–41.

4 

Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetich; Library of Congres Cataloging in-Publicatioin Data. St Louis: Mosby; 2005.

5 

Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Schlegel KA, Nkenke E, Eitner S. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jun;20(6):550–4. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302236

6 

Piao CM, Lee JE, Koak JY, Kim SK, Rhyu IC, Han CH, et al. Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Jul;37(7):538–44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02083.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406355

7 

Lee SY, Piao CM, Koak JY, Kim SK, Kim YS, Ku Y, et al. A 3-year prospective radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around different implant systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Jul;37(7):538–44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02083.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406355

8 

Shin YK, Han CH, Heo SJ, Kim S, Chun HJ. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):789–94. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17066642

9 

Canullo L, Fedele GR, Iannello G, Jepsen S. Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):115–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01867.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070752

10 

de Almeida FD, Carvalho AC, Fontes M, Pedrosa A, Costa R, Noleto JW, et al. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around internal-hex implants with switched platform: a clinical case report series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 May-Jun;26(3):587–92. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21691606

11 

Fickl S, Zuhr O, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):577–81. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20556258

12 

Prosper L, Redaelli S, Pasi M, Zarone F, Radaelli G, Gherlone EF. A randomized prospective multicenter trial evaluating the platform-switching technique for the prevention of postrestorative crestal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Mar-Apr;24(2):299–308. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19492646

13 

Veis A, Parissis N, Tsirlis A, Papadeli C, Marinis G, Zogakis A. Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Dec;30(6):609–17. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20967307

14 

Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A. Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Nov;39(11):1097–113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01930.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22931292

15 

Kahnberg KE. Implant Surgery in the Posterior Region of the Jaws. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2005;39(3):245.

16 

Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris GB, Sbordone C, Guidetti F. Implant Success in Sinus-Lifted Maxillae and Native Bone: A 3-year Clinical and Computerized Tomographic Follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Jul-Aug;24(4):695–703. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19885411

17 

Sbordone L, Levin L, Guidetti F, Sbordone C, Glikman A, Schwartz-Arad D. Apical and Marginal Bone Alterations around Implants in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Grafted with Autogenous Bone or Bovine Bone Material and Simultaneous or Delayed Dental Implant Positioning. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:485–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02030.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21087315

18 

Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, Califano L, Pannone G, Sbordone L. Volumetric changes after sinus augmentation using blocks of autogenous iliac bone or freeze-dried allogeneic bone. A non-randomized study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Mar;42(2):113–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.03.004 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23726762

19 

Sbordone C, Toti P, Ramaglia L, Guidetti F, Sbordone L, Martuscelli R. A 5-year clinical and computerized tomographic implant follow-up in sinus-lifted maxillae and native bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Sep;25(9):1056–64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12222 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23822163

20 

Kraljević, K; Kraljević Šimunković, S - editors. Djelomične proteze. 1 st ed. Zagreb: In.Tri d.o.o.; 2012.

21 

Sulejmanagić, H; Redžepagić, S – editors. Osnovi dentalne implantologije. Sarajevo: Univerzitet u Sarajevu, Stomatološki fakultet; 2002.

22 

Rasouli Ghahroudi AAR, Talaeepour AR, Mesgarzadeh A, Rokn AR, Khorsand A, Mesgarzadeh NN, et al. Radiographic Vertical Bone Loss Evaluation around Dental Implants Following One Year of Functional Loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Sep;25(9):1056–64. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23822163

23 

Boronat A, Penarrocha M, Carrillo C, Marti E. Marginal bone loss in dental implants subjected to early loading (6 to 8 weeks postplacement) with a retrospective short-term follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Feb;66(2):246–50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.09.016 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18201603

24 

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11–25. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3527955

25 

Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzen B, Bergendal T, Hallman M, Karlsson U, et al. A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implants and Branemark System implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(3):130–41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00213.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15726847

26 

Becker W, Becker BE, Israelson H, Lucchini JP, Handelsman M, Ammons W, et al. One-step surgical placement of Brĺnemark implants: a prospective multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):454–62. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9274074

27 

Hänggi MP, Hänggi DC, Schoolfield JD, Meyer J, Cochran DL, Hermann JS. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: A retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar lengths. J Periodontol. 2005 May;76(5):791–802. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.5.791 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15898941

28 

Hobo S, Ishida F, Garcia LT. Osseointegration and occlusal rehabilitation. 2 nd ed. Tokyo: Quintessence Pub; 1990;43.

29 

Johansson LA, Ekfeldt A. Implant-supported fixed partial prostheses: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):172–6. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12737250

30 

Jang BJ, Pena ML, Eskow R, Elian N, Cho SC, Tarnow D. The Effect of Implant Desing on Crestal Bone Levels. 23rd Annual Meeting of Academy of Osseointegration in Boston. 2008;5:111-2.

31 

Hürzeler M, Fickl S, Zuhr O, Hannes C, Wachtel H. Peri-Implant Bone Level Around Implants With Platform-Switched Abutments: Preliminary Data From a Prospective Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Jul;65(7) Suppl 1:33–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.024 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17586347

32 

Lee JH, Frias V, Lee KW, Wright RF. Effect of implant size and shape on implant success rates: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Oct;94(4):377–81. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.018 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16198176

33 

Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The importance of implant surface characteristics in the replacement of failed implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):270–4. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16634498

34 

Tamizi M, Ghanavati F, Radvar M, Ghanavati F, Rahmani MA. Comparison of bone healing around nonsubmerged and submerged implants in Maestro system of Biohorizon technology. Shahid Beheshti Uni Dental School J. 2005;23(1):18–27.

35 

Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Burgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective study of the ITI dental implant system. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(1):8–17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00983.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14731173

36 

Valderrama P, Bornstein MM, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL. Effects of implant design on marginal bone changes around early loaded, chemically modified, sandblasted Acid-etched-surfaced implants: a histologic analysis in dogs. J Periodontol. 2011 Jul;82(7):1025–34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.100491 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21142981

37 

Danza M, Tortora P, Quaranta A, Perrotti V, Vozza I, Piattelli A. Randomised study for the 1-year crestal bone maintenance around modified diameter implants with different loading protocols: a radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Aug;14(4):417–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0314-0 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19603200

38 

Tawil G, Mawla M, Gottlow J. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the 5-mm diameter regular-platform Brĺnemark fixture: 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(1):16–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00147.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11938634

39 

Carlsson GE, Lindquist LW, Jemt T. Long-term marginal periimplant bone loss in edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Jul-Aug;13(4):295–302. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11203645

40 

Penarrocha M, Palomar M, Sanchís JM, Guarinos J, Balaguer J. Radiologic study of marginal bone loss around 108 dental implants and its relationship to smoking, implant location and morphology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):861–7. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15623062

41 

Pham AN, Fiorellini JP, Paquette D, Williams RC, Weber HP. Longitudinal radiographic study of crestal bone levels adjacent to non-submerged dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 1994;20(1):26–34. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7932853

42 

Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(2):204–11. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9581406


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[hrvatski]

Posjeta: 1.193 *