In Vivo Evaluation of Two‐Piece Implants Placed Following One‐Stage and Two‐Stage Surgical Protocol in Posterior Mandibular Region. Assessment of Alterations in Crestal Bone Level

Gulati, Minkle; Govila, Vivek; Verma, Sunil; Rajkumar, Balakrishnan; Anand, Vishal; Aggarwal, Anuj; Jain, Nikil

doi:10.1111/cid.12186

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten of the 11 included studies were prospective RCTs (Becktor et al., ; Cecchinato et al., ; Cordaro et al., ; Eliasson et al., ; Engquist et al., ; Enkling et al., ; Gulati et al., ; Heijdenrijk et al., ; Nemli et al., ; Tallarico et al., ), while 1 was a prospective non‐RCT (Torkzaban et al., ). Six Studies had a parallel design (Becktor et al., ; Cordaro et al., ; Engquist et al., ; Heijdenrijk et al., ; Tallarico et al., ; Torkzaban et al., ), two had a mixed design (Cecchinato et al., ; Gulati et al., ) and the remaining three had a split‐mouth design (Eliasson et al., ; Enkling et al., ; Nemli et al., ). The follow‐up time, after implant placement ranged between 6 months and 5 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the first screening, 26 articles were considered eligible and read in full text. At the end of the full-text evaluation, only 11 articles fulfilling inclusion criteria were selected for data extraction (Becktor, Isaksson, & Billstrom, 2007;Cecchinato et al, 2008;Cordaro, Torsello, & Roccuzzo, 2009;Eliasson et al, 2010;Engquist et al, 2005;Enkling et al, 2011;Gulati et al, 2015;Heijdenrijk, Raghoebar, Meijer, Stegenga, & van der Reijden, 2006;Nemli et al, 2014;Tallarico, Vaccarella, & Marzi, 2011;Torkzaban, Arabi, Roshanaei, Rostami, & Soheilifar, 2015). Fifteen papers were excluded (Abrahamsson, Berglundh, Moon, & Lindhe, 1999;Astrand et al, 2002;Boioli, Penaud, & Miller, 2001;Cochran et al, 2011;Cordaro et al, 2013;Degidi, Piattelli, Gehrke, & Carinci, 2006;Friberg & Jemt, 2015;Garcia, Kraehenmann, Bezerra, Mendes, & Rapp, 2008;Lambrecht, Filippi, Kunzel, & Schiel, 2003;Lang et al, 2007;Marcelis, Vercruyssen, Nicu, Naert, & Quirynen, 2012;Moberg et al, 2001;Naert, Gizani, & van Steenberghe, 1999;Sanchez-Siles, Munoz-Camara, Salazar-Sanchez, Camacho-Alonso, & Calvo-Guirado, 2016;Sanz, Ivanoff et al, 2015).…”

Section: Studies Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The follow-up time, after implant placement ranged between 6 months and 5 years. Six studies were at low risk of bias (Becktor et al, 2007;Cecchinato et al, 2008;Cordaro et al, 2009;Eliasson et al, 2010;Enkling et al, 2011;Tallarico et al, 2011), while five were at high risk of bias (Engquist et al, 2005;Gulati et al, 2015;Heijdenrijk et al, 2006;Nemli et al, 2014;Torkzaban et al, 2015). A summary of the risk of bias in the included studies is reported in Figure 2.…”

Section: Studies Features and Risk Of Bias Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non‐submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Troiano

Russo

Canullo

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Features and Risk Of Bias Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non‐submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Troiano

Russo

Canullo

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All studies included for the qualitative analysis. The 3 studies in grey rowed were excluded from the quantitative analysis as explained in the text [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

Cosola

Marconcini²,

Boccuzzi³

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years.

show abstract

“…One of the limitations of the present study is the sample size. However, most of the studies concerning outcome of no difference between submerged and non-submerged placement are of a similar magnitude and similar patient number (Torzkaban et al 24 [33][34][35][36][37]. The high survival rates motivated us to add two additional parameters, bone loss and new bone gain, to further support the lack of difference between the two surgical approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous, Non-Submerged, Implant Placement Using a Minimally Invasive Hydraulic Technique

Chaushu

Better²,

Kolerman

et al. 2020

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: To evaluate whether sinus augmentation, using a minimally invasive implant device, via a non-submerged surgical approach, might negatively influence the outcome. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by evaluating patients’ files, classifying them into two groups. Fifty patients (22 men 28 women) were included in the study, 25 in each group. The use of an implant device based on residual alveolar ridge height for sinus augmentation, radiographic evaluation, insertion torque, membrane perforation, post-operative healing, and a minimum of 12 months follow-up were evaluated. Results: The mean residual alveolar ridge height was 5.4 mm for the non-submerged group and 4.2 mm for the submerged group. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications (including membrane perforations). The mean insertion torque was 45 N/cm for the study group and 20 N/cm for the control group. Complete soft tissue healing was observed within three weeks. Mean bone gain height was 8 mm for the study and 9.3 mm for the control group. All implants osseointegrated after 6–9 months of healing time. Mean follow-up was 17.5 months, range 12–36 months. Marginal bone loss at last follow-up was not statistically significantly different: 1 mm in the non-submerged vs. 1.2 mm in the submerged group. Conclusions: Submerged and non-submerged healing following maxillary sinus augmentation was comparable provided residual alveolar ridge height >5 mm and insertion torque >25 N/cm.

show abstract

In Vivo Evaluation of Two‐Piece Implants Placed Following One‐Stage and Two‐Stage Surgical Protocol in Posterior Mandibular Region. Assessment of Alterations in Crestal Bone Level

Abstract: Hence, it could be concluded that two-piece implants can be placed following one-stage surgical protocol as predictably as when two-stage surgical technique is followed.

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non‐submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Early and late implant failure of submerged versus non‐submerged implant healing: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous, Non-Submerged, Implant Placement Using a Minimally Invasive Hydraulic Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About