Failures in the osseointegration of endosseous implants

Salonen, M. A. M.; Oikarinen, Kyösti; Virtanen, K.; Pernu, Hannu

doi:10.1097/00008505-199312000-00012

Cited by 79 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most clinical failures occur in the early post-surgical stages [22,23] and an excessive interfacial micromotion during the healing stage has been shown to be potentially detrimental for the osseointegration process [24][25][26]. Moreover, cortical bone has been demonstrated to be an important anatomical site for the initial fixation and support of the occlusal forces [27][28][29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early detachment of titanium particles from various different surfaces of endosseous dental implants

Franchi¹,

Bacchelli²,

Martini³

et al. 2004

Biomaterials

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early detachment of titanium particles from various different surfaces of endosseous dental implants

Franchi¹,

Bacchelli²,

Martini³

et al. 2004

Biomaterials

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is the most important clinical goal to be achieved at the time of implant placement. The rigid fixation of the implant within the host bone cavity, in the absence of micromotion (Adell et al 1981, Futami et al 2000, is a key factor as signs of subclinical mobility may have an effect on implant integration (Salonen et al 1993).…”

Section: Primary Implant Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NobelActive^TM dental implants

Yeung

Zee

et al. 2011

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the short‐term clinical and radiographic efficacy of the NobelActive™ system and to evaluate the relative importance of achieving primary stability at placement. Materials and methods A total of 32 subjects were recruited and, using a split‐mouth design, the NobelActiveTM implant was compared with a contralaterally matched Brånemark implant. Both implants were placed in a single surgical procedure into healed sites using a one‐stage protocol and reviewed at monthly intervals. NobelActiveTM implants were functionally loaded with provisional restorations at 1 month and all implants were restored with final crowns 3 months post‐implant placement. The implant was assessed using peak insertion torque values, resonance frequency analysis (RFA), clinical parameters, digital subtraction radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. Results The insertion torque was significantly greater for the NobelActiveTM implant group (P = 0.02), although no observable difference in RFA values were found. Preliminary results of 6 months follow‐up suggest comparable clinical and radiographic healing responses between the test and control implants. Within the limits of the sample population, the survival rates were lower with the test implants, although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions The NobelActiveTM implant system requires higher insertion torques and can also achieve greater primary stability compared with a control implant system. Short‐term survival and marginal bone levels of NobelActiveTM and control implants are comparable, although the NobelActiveTM implant system appeared to be more technique‐sensitive.

show abstract

“…9,10 However, controversies exist as to whether implant diameter, length, coating configuration, and location influence PTVs. Some investigators state that there is a correlation between larger implant diameters and lengths and the presence of coating as shown by lower PTV scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%