Early dental implant failure: risk factors

Baqain, Zaid H.; Moqbel, Wael Yousef; Sawair, Faleh

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2011.04.074

Cited by 115 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed above, this surface is characterized by many open pores in the low micrometer range [ 28 ], which are thought to improve the bone-to-titanium surface contact. The survival rate for the TiUnite surface implants was shown to be higher (98.6 %) than that for Brånemark implants with turned surfaces (92.1 %) [ 29 ]. The overall survival rate of the TiUnite implants in this study compares favorably with previous reports.…”

Section: Reports About Tiunite Changes Between Turned and Tiunite Sursupporting

confidence: 79%

Anodized Surface and Its Clinical Performance

Koyano¹,

Atsuta²,

Jinno³

2014

Implant Surfaces and Their Biological and Clinical Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many implant surfaces and surface-modifi cation techniques have been examined, and anodized surface on dental implant has been in continued clinical use and has demonstrated good stability during the healing phase. This proof has provided the basis for treatment modality of immediate function.In this chapter, the evidences based on the clinical and basic study reporting the success of osseointegrated implants regarding anodized surface will be reviewed. An understanding of the current evidence may facilitate the most appropriate utilization of this important dental resource.

show abstract

Section: Reports About Tiunite Changes Between Turned and Tiunite Sursupporting

confidence: 79%

Anodized Surface and Its Clinical Performance

Koyano¹,

Atsuta²,

Jinno³

2014

Implant Surfaces and Their Biological and Clinical Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, consensus is when establishment and/or maintenance of osseointegration is jeopardized or impaired, at early stages of bone healing, implant mobility is rendered as the epitome of unsuccessful implant surgery [78][79][80].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

SF Dent Oral Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and BackgroundBy the 1990's, Branemark's concept made such an impact in clinical dentistry that mainstream clinicians and public acceptance rose significantly to the extent that it adumbrated all other protocols and systems, specifically one-piece (1P) implants. Improper clinical documentation, inclination towards reports of failed cases, and lack of university based implantology programs accelerated the isolation of the alternative approaches. Failure reports are not scientifically sufficient and conclusive enough to

show abstract

“…[49][50][51][52][53] Since there are few studies addressing the topic, relevant excluded clinical studies are summarized in Table 2. 22,28,29,36,41 These studies indicate a high predictability of implants placed in the tuberosity region; the survival rate was 100%.…”

Section: General Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%