AICRG, Part I: A 6-Year Multicentered, Multidisciplinary Clinical Study of a New and Innovative Implant Design

Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru; Crum, Patricia M.; Orenstein, Ira H.; Winkler, Sheldon

doi:10.1563/1548-1336(2004)30<125:apiaym>2.0.co;2

Cited by 49 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Same implant systems may also permit micromovements at the abutment-implant connection during clinical function that finally leads to localized inflammation and crestal bone loss. 11,23 Conversely, the subcrestal positioning of implants in the present study resulted in bone located above the implant shoulder, as demonstrated by the radiographic results of the distance from the top of the implant to the first boneto-implant contact at the interimplant region (I-IR). The reason for this finding could not be deduced from the present data, but it has been speculated 13,24-26 that the Morse cone connection that allows abutments to emerge from a more central area of the implant (platform-shifting protocol) may help to protect the peri-implant soft and mineralized tissues FIGURES 4-6.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…[8][9][10] Implants with Morse cone connections feature internal, tapered, and conical abutments to eliminate the microgap often found in 2-stage implant systems. The implant/abutment connection of these systems and the microgap may allow repetitive micromovements between the parts during clinical function, 11 as well as accumulation of food debris and bacteria, both of which can lead to localized inflammation and crestal bone loss. [12][13][14] This system uses the platformshifting protocol for restoration, in which the abutment is 1 mm narrower than the implant platform at the time of surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A reduced peri-implant crestal bone resorption has been demonstrated with this protocol, 15 and an explanation for this finding could be the displacement of stresses during function away from the dense cortical bone and toward the resilient trabecular bone. 11 More recently, clinical studies were conducted to evaluate whether the subcrestal positioning of the implants could alter the crestal bone resorption. However, no consensus was achieved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of Interimplant Distances and Placement Depth on Papilla Formation and Crestal Resorption: A Clinical and Radiographic Study in Dogs

Novaes¹,

Barros²,

Múglia³

et al. 2009

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the factors that contribute to the papilla formation and crestal bone preservation between contiguous implants, this animal study clinically and radiographically evaluated the interimplant distances (IDs) of 2 and 3 mm and the placement depths of Morse cone connection implants restored with platform switch. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 6 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks, the implants were placed. Four experimental groups were constituted: subcrestally with ID of 2 mm (2 SCL) and 3 mm (3 SCL) and crestally with ID of 2 mm (2 CL) and 3 mm (3 CL). Metallic crowns were immediately installed with a distance of 3 mm between the contact point and the bone crest. Eight weeks later, clinical measurements were performed to evaluate papilla formation, and radiographic images were taken to analyze the crestal bone remodeling. The subcrestal groups achieved better levels of papillae formation when compared with the crestal groups, with a significant difference between the 3 SCL and 3 CL groups (P = .026). Radiographically, the crestal bone preservation was also better in the subcrestal groups, with statistically significant differences between the 2SCL and 2CL groups (P = .002) and between the 3SCL and 3CL groups (P = .008). With the present conditions, it could be concluded that subcrestal implant placement had a positive impact on papilla formation and crestal bone preservation, which could favor the esthetic of anterior regions. However, the IDs of 2 and 3 mm did not show significantly different results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Interimplant Distances and Placement Depth on Papilla Formation and Crestal Resorption: A Clinical and Radiographic Study in Dogs

Novaes¹,

Barros²,

Múglia³

et al. 2009

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The low elastic modulus of trabecular bone acts as a stress breaker that promotes better dissipation of stresses from the occlusal loading. 28 However, the peak stress was substituted by higher implant displacement. In the present study, all models exhibited implant displacement below the threshold of 150 µm required to prevent fibrous tissue formation; 2 these are in the same range reported by a previous study using FEA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the biomechanical influence of apical bone anchorage on a single subcrestal dental implant using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Four different bone anchorage designs were simulated on a posterior maxillary segment using one implant with platform switching and internal Morse taper connection as follows: 2 mm subcrestal placement with (SW) or without (SO) the implant apex engaged into the cortical bone or position at bone level with anchorage only in the crestal cortical (BO) bone or with bicortical fixation (BW). Each implant received a premolar crown, and all models were loaded with 200 N to simulate centric and eccentric occlusion. The peak tensile and compressive stress and strain were calculated at the crestal cortical, trabecular, and apical cortical bone. The vertical and horizontal implant displacements were measured at the platform level. FEA indicated that subcrestal placement (SW and SO) created lower stress and strain in the crestal cortical bone compared with crestal placement (BO and BW models). The SW model exhibited lesser vertical and horizontal implant micromovement compared with the SO and BO models under eccentric loading; however, stress and strain were higher in the apical cortical bone. The BW model exhibited the lowest implant displacement. These results indicate that subcrestal placement decreases the stress in the crestal cortical bone of dental implants, regardless of apical anchorage; however, apical cortical anchorage can be effective in limiting implant displacement. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of possible remodeling around the apex on the success of subcrestal implants.

show abstract

“…Morris et al [10] in their publication, showed that within a 5-year period, from among 1500 implants, 98.3% of all conical abutment (DENTSPLY Friadent ANKYLOS®) implants survived. What is more, relatively high survival rates (98.2%) were seen involving 275 DENTSPLY Friadent ANKYLOS® implants loaded prosthetically in the form of a single crown, during an 8-year follow-up period [2].…”

Section: Current Issues In Pharmacy and Medical Sciencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival of dental implants with different implant-abutment connection systems

Szpak¹,

Szymańska

2016

Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to evaluate the survival of implants with different implantabutment connection systems, in patients who had two kinds of implants implanted. In total, 240 implants were implanted -91 implants with conical abutment Morse connection, and 149 with an internal hexagonal connection. During the follow-up period of 3 years and 10 months, the percentage of lost implants with a conical implant-abutment connection was 1.1%. Regarding the implants with hexagonal implant-abutment connection, this figure was 0.7%. Our work shows that there is a need for further research on the survival of dental implants. In this, the influence of other factors should be explored that are related both to the specific implant treatment, as well as to socio-demographic factors.

show abstract

AICRG, Part I: A 6-Year Multicentered, Multidisciplinary Clinical Study of a New and Innovative Implant Design

Cited by 49 publications

References 12 publications

Influence of Interimplant Distances and Placement Depth on Papilla Formation and Crestal Resorption: A Clinical and Radiographic Study in Dogs

Influence of Interimplant Distances and Placement Depth on Papilla Formation and Crestal Resorption: A Clinical and Radiographic Study in Dogs

Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal dental implants with different bone anchorages

The survival of dental implants with different implant-abutment connection systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About