Variables Affecting Survival of Single‐Tooth Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Implants in Anterior Maxillae at 3 Years

Orenstein, Ira H.; Petrazzuolo, Vincent; Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru

doi:10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.68

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 28 full‐text papers; 13 were cited in more than one research of terms. The full‐text reports of the remaining 15 articles led to the exclusion of 4 because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: two articles did not inform of the number of failed implants in each group, one article did not clearly inform of the number of implants in each group, and one article did not evaluate implant failures. Orenstein et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Orenstein et al . informed of the number of implants placed and the number of failed implants in patients taking pre‐ and post‐operative antibiotics separately. However, it was not informed whether, for example, some patients who did not take antibiotics pre‐operatively made use of antibiotics post‐operatively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The full-text reports of the remaining 15 articles led to the exclusion of 4 because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: two articles (13,14) did not inform of the number of failed implants in each group, one article (15) did not clearly inform of the number of implants in each group, and one article (16) did not evaluate implant failures. Orenstein et al (15) informed of the number of implants placed and the number of failed implants in patients taking preand post-operative antibiotics separately. However, it was not informed whether, for example, some patients who did not take antibiotics pre-operatively made use of antibiotics post-operatively.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prophylactic antibiotic regimen and dental implant failure: a meta‐analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson

Wennerberg³

2014

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether there are any positive effects of prophylactic antibiotic regimen on implant failure rates and post-operative infection when performing dental implant treatment in healthy individuals. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. The search strategy resulted in 14 publications. The I(2) statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used with a fixed- or random-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval. Six studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas one study was considered at moderate risk, and six studies were considered at low risk of bias. The test for overall effect showed that the difference between the procedures (use versus non-use of antibiotics) significantly affected the implant failure rates (P = 0.0002), with a RR of 0.55 (95% CI 0.41-0.75). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having an implant failure was 50 (95% CI 33-100). There were no apparent significant effects of prophylactic antibiotics on the occurrence of post-operative infections in healthy patients receiving implants (P = 0.520). A sensitivity analysis did not reveal difference when studies judged as having high risk of bias were not considered. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prophylactic antibiotic regimen and dental implant failure: a meta‐analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson

Wennerberg³

2014

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Block and Kent 2 reported a cumulative success rate of 9‐.1% over a 3‐ to 4‐year period for HA‐coated cylindrical implants. Orenstein et al 3 reported that the establishment and maintenance of osseointegration was 97.3% at 3 years in single‐tooth HA‐coated implants in the anterior maxilla. In a clinical study of 388 implants with a mean follow‐up of 60 months, Schwartz‐Arad et al 4 found that the marginal bone loss was significantly lower in commercially pure (cp) titanium implants, whereas HA‐coated implants had a significantly higher 12‐year survival rate than cp titanium implants (93.2% versus 89%).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Human Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Dental Implants Retrieved After a 14‐Year Loading Period: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Case Report

Iezzi

Scarano

Petrone

et al. 2007

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All patients were aware of the study method and after being informed of the potential problems and risks, they signed an informed consent form. Patients were selected based on the following criteria: Inclusion criteria: The presence of a hopeless tooth in the anterior or premolar region, the presence of an adequate mesiodistal space (6.5 mm or more) for placement of an implant with 3.5-mm or maximum possible diameter based on the anatomy of the area, the presence of a bundle of keratinized mucosa around the hopeless tooth, the presence of adjacent teeth, either intact or restored using a proper and functional restoration with no pathological periradicular lesions, proper oral hygiene (plaque index below 20%), and normal occlusion [5,[10][11][12].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographic Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss Following Immediate and Delayed Implantation

Khazaei

Shisheian

Abbasi

et al. 2019

J Islam Dent Assoc Iran

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Intraosseous implants can be placed using three different techniques: immediate, early, and delayed. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in the marginal bone level around implants after immediate and delayed implant placement. Materials and Methods:In the present prospective cohort study, 26 implants were placed in 26 patients divided into two groups. In group 1, 13 implants were placed immediately, while in group 2, 13 implants were placed with a delay of more than 4 months after tooth extraction. The marginal bone level was measured on periapical radiographs taken using the parallel technique at implant placement time and 6 and 12 months after implantation. The measurements were made using a digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, and the data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Mauchly's sphericity test. The statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: The mean distances between the crestal bone and the implant shoulder in group 1 were 1.12 mm, 1.48 mm, and 1.77 mm at implant placement time and 6 and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. In group 2, these distances were 1.26 mm, 1.46 mm, and 1.71 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences in marginal bone resorption between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion:There was no significant difference in crestal bone loss around implants placed with immediate and delayed techniques.

show abstract

Variables Affecting Survival of Single‐Tooth Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Implants in Anterior Maxillae at 3 Years

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Prophylactic antibiotic regimen and dental implant failure: a meta‐analysis

Prophylactic antibiotic regimen and dental implant failure: a meta‐analysis

Two Human Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Dental Implants Retrieved After a 14‐Year Loading Period: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Case Report

Radiographic Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss Following Immediate and Delayed Implantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About