Evaluation of the Surface Integrity of Hydroxyapatite-Coated Threaded Dental Implants After Insertion

Edmonds, Robert; Yukna, Raymond A.; Moses, R. L.

doi:10.1097/00008505-199600540-00006

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Osteotomy site preparation must, therefore, be very precise for the bullet design. Edmonds et al 24 showed that surface changes of threaded HA-coated implants may occur during placement, especially in untapped and undersized osteotomy site preparations. The manufacturing tolerances for the application of HA do not produce a uniform coating for all implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Implant Mobility at Placement and Integration of Mobile Implants at Uncovering

Orenstein

Tarnow

Morris

et al. 1998

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined 1) factors that contributed to implant stability at placement and 2) the likelihood for an implant that was mobile at placement to osseointegrate. Eighty‐one (3.1%) of 2,641 implants placed by the Dental Implant Clinical Research Group between 1991 and 1995 were found to be mobile at placement. Seventy‐six (93.8%) of the 81 mobile implants were integrated at uncovering compared to 97.5% for the 2,560 immobile implants. Variables that influenced mobility at placement included patient age, implant design and material, anterior‐posterior jaw location, bone density, and use of a bone tap. Hydroxyapatite (HA)‐coated implants were slightly more likely to be mobile at placement (P = 0.324) than non‐hydroxypatite (HA)coated implants. Of the 54 HA‐coated implants that were mobile at placement, all (100%) integrated, while only 17 (81.5%) of the 22 mobile non‐HA‐coated implants integrated (P = 0.003). Mean electronic mobility testing device values (PTVs) at uncovering for all implants mobile or immobile at placement that integrated were −2.9 and −3.6 respectively. PTVs for HA‐coated implants that were mobile (−3.5 PTV) or immobile (−4.0 PTV) at placement differed by 0.5 PTV, whereas non‐HA‐coated implants exhibited a greater difference of 1.2 PTVs at uncovering. HA‐coated implants, regardless of mobility at placement, integrated more frequently and exhibited greater stability than non HA‐coated implants. J Periodontol 1998;69:1404–1412.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Implant Mobility at Placement and Integration of Mobile Implants at Uncovering

Orenstein

Tarnow

Morris

et al. 1998

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4), as previously observed with HA-coated root-form implants. 31,32 Although frictional stress during implant installation 33 has been shown to cause particle detachment, the particles could have been detached during specimen preparation. They appeared to be in intimate contact with the bone, with no evidence of adverse reaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of two Vitallium blade-form implants retrieved after 13 to 21 years of function: A clinical report

Proussaefs

Lozada

2002

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This effect on the surface integrity of HAcoated threaded implants was reported by Edmonds and colleagues. 37 Increased amounts of HA surface damage were documented for implants inserted into undersized sites. It was felt that this damage occurred due to the increased friction and force required to seat the implants to position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Surface Coating and Bone Quality‐Related Survival Outcomes Through 36 Months Post‐Placement of Root‐Form Endosseous Dental Implants

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survival rates from placement to 36 months were reported for the ongoing Dental Implant Clinical Research Group studies of root-form endosseous dental implants. Failure rates for all implants were similar in bone qualities 1 and 2 (6.2% and 6.7%, respectively) and slightly higher in bone qualities 3 and 4 (8.5% and 8.7%, respectively). Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants had an overall failure rate of 3.9% over 36 months in all bone qualities combined, while non-coated implants had a 13.4% failure rate for the same parameters. For each bone quality, there was a significant difference in implant survival for the non-coated implants (P < 0.01). The highest failure rates for non-coated implants were in bone qualities 3 and 4 (19.1% and 25.5%, respectively). No major difference in survival was found for HA-coated implants placed in each bone quality. Possible reasons for the differences in survival are discussed.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Surface Integrity of Hydroxyapatite-Coated Threaded Dental Implants After Insertion

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Factors Affecting Implant Mobility at Placement and Integration of Mobile Implants at Uncovering

Factors Affecting Implant Mobility at Placement and Integration of Mobile Implants at Uncovering

Evaluation of two Vitallium blade-form implants retrieved after 13 to 21 years of function: A clinical report

Implant Surface Coating and Bone Quality‐Related Survival Outcomes Through 36 Months Post‐Placement of Root‐Form Endosseous Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About