Brånemark System® Wide Platform Implants for Single Molar Replacement: Clinical Evaluation of Prospective and Retrospective Materials

Polizzi, Giovanni; Rangert, Bo; Lekholm, Ulf; Gualini, Federico; Lindström, Håkan

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00107.x

Cited by 56 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors have claimed that implants with wider diameters improve the bone-implant contact within compact bones and thus are preferable. [22][23][24] A study by Bischof et al 25 investigated ITI implants and found that a higher ISQ was seen in the maxilla than in the mandible and in type I than in type III bone; however, stability was not significantly related to site of placement or implant length and diameter. Additionally, up to 4 to 6 weeks after placement, ISQ was maintained or slightly increased, and after 6 weeks, the range of increment became larger.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Implant Stability Measurements in the Long-term Follow-up of Dentis Implants

Jeong¹,

Jung²,

Kim³

et al. 2015

Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Implant Stability Measurements in the Long-term Follow-up of Dentis Implants

Jeong¹,

Jung²,

Kim³

et al. 2015

Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mean implant length was 12.2 mm (range, 5-8 mm): 839 short implants [9] were less than 10 mm in length (5.8%), 3,858 implants were between 10 mm and 12 mm length (29.5%), 7,537 implants were between 13 mm and 15 mm length (58.4%), and 913 implants were longer than 15 mm (6.3%). The mean implant diameter was 4.2 mm (range, 3-6 mm): 2,564 narrow-diameter implants [10] were less than 3.75 mm in diameter (19.5%), 8,887 regular-diameter implants were between 3.75 mm and 4.8 mm in diameter (67.6%), and 1,696 were wide-diameter implants with a width of at least 5 mm (12.9%) [11]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis

Busenlechner

Fürhauser

Haas

et al. 2014

J Periodontal Implant Sci

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeRehabilitation of the incomplete dentition by means of osseointegrated dental implants represents a highly predictable and widespread therapy; however, little is known about potential risk factors that may impair long-term implant success.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2012, a total of 13,147 implants were placed in 4,316 patients at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna. The survival rates after 8 years of follow-up were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of patient- and implant-related risk factors was assessed.ResultsOverall implant survival was 97% and was not associated with implant length (P=0.930), implant diameter (P=0.704), jaw location (P=0.545), implant position (P=0.450), local bone quality (P=0.398), previous bone augmentation surgery (P=0.617), or patient-related factors including osteoporosis (P=0.661), age (P=0.575), or diabetes mellitus (P=0.928). However, smoking increased the risk of implant failure by 3 folds (P<0.001) and a positive history of periodontal disease doubled the failure risk (P=0.001).ConclusionsSumming up the long-term results of well over 10,000 implants at the Academy for Oral Implantology in Vienna it can be concluded that there is only a limited number of patients that do not qualify for implant therapy and may thus not benefit from improved quality of life associated with fixed implant-retained prostheses.Graphical Abstract

show abstract

“…Three studies evaluated only wide-diameter implants. The number of patients evaluated in these studies was as follows: Khayat et al [13] studied 71 patients, Polizzi et al [16] studied 34 patients, and Schincaglia et al [17] studied 15 patients. Schincaglia et al’s study was a randomized controlled trial evaluating immediate-loading versus delay-loading of wide-diameter implants; only data of the control group that was not immediately loaded was included in the meta-analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics on the survival of the wide-diameter implant

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of the study are to study the implant survival of the wide-diameter implant and to analyze if the length, the implant surface, or the placement location has any effect on its survival. Electronic databases were searched from inception to Dec 2014. Studies included in the review had implants placed in areas of adequate bone width and had clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection. Immediately placed and immediately loaded implants were excluded. A meta-analysis was done using the “random effects” model on the included studies. And, a meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of location, length, and surface on the implant survival. Of the six studies selected, three evaluated surface-treated implants and three machined implants. The overall pooled survival rate of the wide implant is 96.3 %. The meta-regression showed that when using a wide implant, neither its surface nor its length nor its position in the maxilla or mandible adversely affected its survival (P > 0.05). This meta-analysis concluded that the location, length, and surface of the wide-diameter implant did not affect its survival and therefore suggested that when the conditions of the implant site corresponded to the inclusion criteria of our meta-analysis, choosing a wide-diameter implant in the posterior mandible or maxilla, where implant length may be limited by the nerve or the sinus, the use of a short implant regardless of its surface would not affect its survival.

show abstract

Brånemark System® Wide Platform Implants for Single Molar Replacement: Clinical Evaluation of Prospective and Retrospective Materials

Cited by 56 publications

References 8 publications

Implant Stability Measurements in the Long-term Follow-up of Dentis Implants

Implant Stability Measurements in the Long-term Follow-up of Dentis Implants

Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis

A meta-analysis on the effect of implant characteristics on the survival of the wide-diameter implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About