Survival of Various Implant‐Supported Prosthesis Designs Following 36 Months of Clinical Function

Rodriguez, Arthur M.; Orenstein, Ira H.; Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru

doi:10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.101

Cited by 48 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The correlation between occlusal overloading and periimplantitis, which consequently results in implant failure, has been controversial [3,18]. Supra-occlusal axial and lateral loading has been shown to create some crater-like bone defects lateral to the implants and loss of osseointegration [19e21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of stress distribution around implant fixture with three different crown materials

Soliman

Tamam

Yousief

et al. 2015

Tanta Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of stress distribution around implant fixture with three different crown materials

Soliman

Tamam

Yousief

et al. 2015

Tanta Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After full-text article were assessed for their eligibility, four articles [2,[13][14][15] are included due to their eligibility with inclusion criteria with only one study [16] was excluded due to not fulfi ll the inclusion criteria (the reason for exclusion was due to the authors do not compare directly between screw retained and cemented retained prosthesis). The researching process from initial screening to fi nal inclusion for 4 studies eligible for qualitative and quantitative assessment as seen in Figure 1.…”

Section: Studies Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported prosthesis on peri-implantitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abdullah

Al-Fahd²,

Alsourori³

et al. 2015

IDJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the signifi cant diff erences of the marginal bone loss (MBL) between screw retained versus cemented prosthesis. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive electronic searching in PubMed and Cochrane databases up to July 2015 with language restriction to English only. We include any randomized controlled trials compare between screw retained versus cemented retained implant prosthesis regarding MBL. In addition, a manual searching was performed for related journals from January 2011 to May 2015. A meta-analysis was performed on all included studies by using a random eff ect model (mean, 95% confi dence intervals [CI]) to pool the eff ect size as a heterogeneity among studies was high (P < 0.0001 and I² = 88%). Result: Initial screening and manual searching result in 199 articles from which only 4 articles compatible with our inclusion criteria. No statistical signifi cance was found between screw retained and cemented retained prosthesis regarding MBL (confi dence interval CI = 95 and P = 0.26). Conclusion:No strong evidence to support the diff erence between screw retained and cemented retained implant prosthesis in the amount of MBL as a measure for periimplantitis.

show abstract

“…As an example, it has been popular in the literature to refer to hybrid prosthesis as a design concept. 37,38 The GPT-7 defines a hybrid prosthesis as ''slang for a nonspecific term applied to any prosthesis that does not follow conventional design.'' Therefore, hybrid prosthesis is too general and is an undesirable modifier of design.…”

Section: The Support-retention-connection-prosthesis Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposal for Universal Nomenclature in Implant Prosthodontics

Nase

2005

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempts have been made at formulating standardized nomenclature for implantology. Although these classification systems have advanced the concept of universal nomenclature in implantology, they can be improved upon. Most of them present terms in glossary form, which can limit their applicability. Others deviate significantly from accepted basic terminology and can be foreign or ambiguous to the average clinician. This article outlines the semiotic approach to language formulation, discusses slight changes to accepted conventional prosthodontic terminology to better encompass implant dentistry, and introduces the shortform and support-retention-connection-prosthesis classification systems.

show abstract

Survival of Various Implant‐Supported Prosthesis Designs Following 36 Months of Clinical Function

Abstract: The recommended prosthesis designs investigated in this study proved to be reliable, with encouraging success rates for an observation period of 36 months following placement.

Cited by 48 publications

References 20 publications

Assessment of stress distribution around implant fixture with three different crown materials

Assessment of stress distribution around implant fixture with three different crown materials

Impact of screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported prosthesis on peri-implantitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

A Proposal for Universal Nomenclature in Implant Prosthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About