Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial
Identifieur interne : 000344 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000343; suivant : 000345Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial
Auteurs : A. G. Türk ; M. Ulusoy ; S. Toksavul ; P. Güneri ; H. KocaSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2013-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Aetiological factors, Base metal alloy, Bone level, Bone loss, Clinical study, Crestal, Crestal bone loss, Crestal bone loss differences, Crestal changes, Dental implants, Dentsply, Dentsply implants, Different implant designs, Different prosthetic materials, Digital subtraction method, Digital subtraction radiography method, Implant, Implant design, Implant length, Implant success, Implant system, Implant systems, Independent samples, Intraoral radiographs, John wiley sons, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Marginal bone loss measurements, Marginal bone resorption, Maxillofac, Month radiographs, Nite element analysis, Noble metal alloy, Null hypothesis, Occlusal, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegrated prostheses, Partial dentures, Porcelain, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic materials, Prosthetic superstructure materials, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Regression analysis, Restorative materials, Statistical analysis, Superstructure, Superstructure material, Superstructure materials, Surgical technique, University school, Vander sloten, Xive.
- Teeft :
- Aetiological factors, Base metal alloy, Bone level, Bone loss, Clinical study, Crestal, Crestal bone loss, Crestal bone loss differences, Crestal changes, Dental implants, Dentsply, Dentsply implants, Different implant designs, Different prosthetic materials, Digital subtraction method, Digital subtraction radiography method, Implant, Implant design, Implant length, Implant success, Implant system, Implant systems, Independent samples, Intraoral radiographs, John wiley sons, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Marginal bone loss measurements, Marginal bone resorption, Maxillofac, Month radiographs, Nite element analysis, Noble metal alloy, Null hypothesis, Occlusal, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral rehabil, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegrated prostheses, Partial dentures, Porcelain, Prosthesis, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic materials, Prosthetic superstructure materials, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Regression analysis, Restorative materials, Statistical analysis, Superstructure, Superstructure material, Superstructure materials, Surgical technique, University school, Vander sloten, Xive.
Abstract
Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way anova and independent samples t‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, P = 0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (P > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (P = 0·003) at 3 months, (P = 0·038), at 6 months and (P = 0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (P = 0·629) at 3 months, (P = 0·974) at 6 months and (P = 1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12054
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title><author><name sortKey="Turk, A G" sort="Turk, A G" uniqKey="Turk A" first="A. G." last="Türk">A. G. Türk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: agturk@gmail.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Ulusoy, M" sort="Ulusoy, M" uniqKey="Ulusoy M" first="M." last="Ulusoy">M. Ulusoy</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Toksavul, S" sort="Toksavul, S" uniqKey="Toksavul S" first="S." last="Toksavul">S. Toksavul</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Guneri, P" sort="Guneri, P" uniqKey="Guneri P" first="P." last="Güneri">P. Güneri</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Koca, H" sort="Koca, H" uniqKey="Koca H" first="H." last="Koca">H. Koca</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/joor.12054</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000344</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000344</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title><author><name sortKey="Turk, A G" sort="Turk, A G" uniqKey="Turk A" first="A. G." last="Türk">A. G. Türk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: agturk@gmail.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Ulusoy, M" sort="Ulusoy, M" uniqKey="Ulusoy M" first="M." last="Ulusoy">M. Ulusoy</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Toksavul, S" sort="Toksavul, S" uniqKey="Toksavul S" first="S." last="Toksavul">S. Toksavul</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Guneri, P" sort="Guneri, P" uniqKey="Guneri P" first="P." last="Güneri">P. Güneri</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Koca, H" sort="Koca, H" uniqKey="Koca H" first="H." last="Koca">H. Koca</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">40</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="457">457</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="463">463</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><date type="published" when="2013-06">2013-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Aetiological factors</term><term>Base metal alloy</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone loss</term><term>Crestal bone loss differences</term><term>Crestal changes</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentsply</term><term>Dentsply implants</term><term>Different implant designs</term><term>Different prosthetic materials</term><term>Digital subtraction method</term><term>Digital subtraction radiography method</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant success</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Independent samples</term><term>Intraoral radiographs</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Marginal bone loss measurements</term><term>Marginal bone resorption</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Month radiographs</term><term>Nite element analysis</term><term>Noble metal alloy</term><term>Null hypothesis</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegrated prostheses</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Porcelain</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic materials</term><term>Prosthetic superstructure materials</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Regression analysis</term><term>Restorative materials</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Superstructure material</term><term>Superstructure materials</term><term>Surgical technique</term><term>University school</term><term>Vander sloten</term><term>Xive</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Aetiological factors</term><term>Base metal alloy</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone loss</term><term>Crestal bone loss differences</term><term>Crestal changes</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentsply</term><term>Dentsply implants</term><term>Different implant designs</term><term>Different prosthetic materials</term><term>Digital subtraction method</term><term>Digital subtraction radiography method</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant success</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Independent samples</term><term>Intraoral radiographs</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Marginal bone loss measurements</term><term>Marginal bone resorption</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Month radiographs</term><term>Nite element analysis</term><term>Noble metal alloy</term><term>Null hypothesis</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral rehabil</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegrated prostheses</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Porcelain</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic materials</term><term>Prosthetic superstructure materials</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Regression analysis</term><term>Restorative materials</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Superstructure material</term><term>Superstructure materials</term><term>Surgical technique</term><term>University school</term><term>Vander sloten</term><term>Xive</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way anova and independent samples t‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, P = 0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (P > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (P = 0·003) at 3 months, (P = 0·038), at 6 months and (P = 0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (P = 0·629) at 3 months, (P = 0·974) at 6 months and (P = 1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>crestal</json:string><json:string>crestal bone loss</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>radiograph</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>occlusal</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>superstructure</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>superstructure material</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>superstructure materials</json:string><json:string>xive</json:string><json:string>dentsply</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>radiographic evaluation</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>oral rehabil</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>statistical analysis</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>implant design</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>prosthetic materials</json:string><json:string>restorative materials</json:string><json:string>implant success</json:string><json:string>crestal changes</json:string><json:string>implant length</json:string><json:string>aetiological factors</json:string><json:string>porcelain</json:string><json:string>independent samples</json:string><json:string>university school</json:string><json:string>prosthetic superstructure materials</json:string><json:string>different implant designs</json:string><json:string>surgical technique</json:string><json:string>dentsply implants</json:string><json:string>month radiographs</json:string><json:string>digital subtraction radiography method</json:string><json:string>regression analysis</json:string><json:string>digital subtraction method</json:string><json:string>crestal bone loss differences</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss measurements</json:string><json:string>marginal bone resorption</json:string><json:string>null hypothesis</json:string><json:string>nite element analysis</json:string><json:string>intraoral radiographs</json:string><json:string>clinical study</json:string><json:string>noble metal alloy</json:string><json:string>base metal alloy</json:string><json:string>different prosthetic materials</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated prostheses</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>vander sloten</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>A. G. Türk</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</json:string><json:string>E-mail: agturk@gmail.com</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>M. Ulusoy</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>S. Toksavul</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>P. Güneri</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>H. Koca</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fixed partial dentures</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>superstructure materials</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>marginal bone loss</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>radiographic evaluation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>digital subtraction method</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR12054</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-HR5BRFFK-4</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way anova and independent samples t‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, P = 0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (P > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (P = 0·003) at 3 months, (P = 0·038), at 6 months and (P = 0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (P = 0·629) at 3 months, (P = 0·974) at 6 months and (P = 1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.253</score><pdfWordCount>3493</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>22190</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.7</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>230</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1583</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title><pmid><json:string>23586326</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string></publisherId><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><pages><first>457</first><last>463</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Original Article</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1981</json:string><json:string>1</json:string><json:string>2013-03-28</json:string><json:string>1982</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Turkey SUMMARY Marginal</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege</json:string><json:string>Sons Ltd</json:string><json:string>Ege University</json:string><json:string>University of Ege</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology</json:string><json:string>Department of Statistics, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey</json:string><json:string>Ethical Committee of the Ege University Faculty</json:string><json:string>Research Project Fund</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Time Baseline</json:string><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>Hayal Boyac</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Turkey</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Krennmair et al.</json:string><json:string>De Almeida et al.</json:string><json:string>Adell et al.</json:string><json:string>Vigolo et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-HR5BRFFK-4</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2013</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2013</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/joor.12054</json:string></doi><id>5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Wiley Publishing Ltd</publisher><availability><licence>© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">A. G.</forename><surname>Türk</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Prosthodontics</orgName><orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName><orgName>University of Ege</orgName><address><settlement type="city">İzmir</settlement><country key="TR">Turkey</country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Correspondence: Ayşe G. Türk, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, Bornova, İzmir 35100, Turkey. E‐mail: agturk@gmail.com</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">M.</forename><surname>Ulusoy</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Prosthodontics</orgName><orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName><orgName>University of Ege</orgName><address><settlement type="city">İzmir</settlement><country key="TR">Turkey</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">S.</forename><surname>Toksavul</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Prosthodontics</orgName><orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName><orgName>University of Ege</orgName><address><settlement type="city">İzmir</settlement><country key="TR">Turkey</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">P.</forename><surname>Güneri</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology</orgName><orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName><orgName>University of Ege</orgName><address><settlement type="city">İzmir</settlement><country key="TR">Turkey</country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">H.</forename><surname>Koca</surname></persName><affiliation><orgName>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology</orgName><orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName><orgName>University of Ege</orgName><address><settlement type="city">İzmir</settlement><country key="TR">Turkey</country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HR5BRFFK-4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/joor.12054</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR12054</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR12054.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/joor.2013.40.issue-6</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">40</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="457">457</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="463">463</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><date type="published" when="2013-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract style="main" xml:id="joor12054-abs-0001"><head>Summary</head><p>Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way <hi rend="smallCaps">anova</hi> and independent samples <hi rend="italic">t</hi>‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, <hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (<hi rend="italic">P</hi> > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·003) at 3 months, (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·038), at 6 months and (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·629) at 3 months, (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>0·974) at 6 months and (<hi rend="italic">P </hi>=<hi rend="italic"> </hi>1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0001">dental implant</term><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0002">fixed partial dentures</term><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0003">superstructure materials</term><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0004">marginal bone loss</term><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0005">radiographic evaluation</term><term xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0006">digital subtraction method</term></keywords><keywords rend="articleCategory"><term>Original Article</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component type="serialArticle" version="2.0" xml:id="joor12054" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi><issn type="print">0305-182X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title sort="JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title type="short">J Oral Rehabil</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06106"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/joor.2013.40.issue-6</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="40">40</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2013-06">June 2013</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" position="80" status="forIssue" type="article"><doi>10.1111/joor.12054</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR12054"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count number="7" type="pageTotal"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Original Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event date="2013-03-19" type="manuscriptAccepted"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2013-03-28" type="xmlCreated"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2013-04-16"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2013-04-16"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2013-05-13"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.6.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-10-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">457</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">463</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Correspondence: Ayşe G. Türk, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, Bornova, İzmir 35100, Turkey. E‐mail: <email>agturk@gmail.com</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR12054.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><titleGroup><title type="main">Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title><title type="shortAuthors">A. G. Türk <i>et al</i>.</title></titleGroup><creators><creator affiliationRef="#joor12054-aff-0001" corresponding="yes" creatorRole="author" xml:id="joor12054-cr-0001"><personName><givenNames>A. G.</givenNames> <familyName>Türk</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#joor12054-aff-0001" creatorRole="author" xml:id="joor12054-cr-0002"><personName><givenNames>M.</givenNames> <familyName>Ulusoy</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#joor12054-aff-0001" creatorRole="author" xml:id="joor12054-cr-0003"><personName><givenNames>S.</givenNames> <familyName>Toksavul</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#joor12054-aff-0002" creatorRole="author" xml:id="joor12054-cr-0004"><personName><givenNames>P.</givenNames> <familyName>Güneri</familyName></personName></creator><creator affiliationRef="#joor12054-aff-0002" creatorRole="author" xml:id="joor12054-cr-0005"><personName><givenNames>H.</givenNames> <familyName>Koca</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation countryCode="TR" type="organization" xml:id="joor12054-aff-0001"><orgDiv>Department of Prosthodontics</orgDiv> <orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName> <orgName>University of Ege</orgName> <address><city>İzmir</city><country>Turkey</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="TR" type="organization" xml:id="joor12054-aff-0002"><orgDiv>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology</orgDiv> <orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName> <orgName>University of Ege</orgName> <address><city>İzmir</city><country>Turkey</country></address></affiliation><affiliation countryCode="TR" type="organization" xml:id="joor12054-aff-0003"><orgDiv>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department</orgDiv> <orgName>Faculty of Dentistry</orgName> <orgName>University of Ege</orgName> <address><city>İzmir</city> <country>Turkey</country></address></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup type="author"><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0001">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0002">fixed partial dentures</keyword><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0003">superstructure materials</keyword><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0004">marginal bone loss</keyword><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0005">radiographic evaluation</keyword><keyword xml:id="joor12054-kwd-0006">digital subtraction method</keyword></keywordGroup><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>Ege University Scientific Research Project Fund</fundingAgency><fundingNumber>2007‐DIS‐004</fundingNumber></fundingInfo><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:id="joor12054-abs-0001"><title type="main">Summary</title><p>Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way <sc>anova</sc> and independent samples <i>t</i>‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, <i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (<i>P</i> > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·003) at 3 months, (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·038), at 6 months and (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·629) at 3 months, (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0·974) at 6 months and (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A. G.</namePart><namePart type="family">Türk</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: agturk@gmail.com</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Ulusoy</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.</namePart><namePart type="family">Toksavul</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Güneri</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H.</namePart><namePart type="family">Koca</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ege, İzmir, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2013-06</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2013-03-28</dateCreated><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">2013-03-19</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2013</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><abstract>Marginal bone level is a criterion for implant success. The aetiological factors of bone loss have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant systems and prosthetic materials on the marginal bone loss. Twenty‐three patients participated; two implant systems and three superstructure materials were used in this study. Twenty‐two of the implants were restored with porcelain fused to base metal alloy (BMA), 25 with porcelain fused to noble metal alloy (NMA) and 20 with zirconium oxide‐based ceramics. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after loading. Crestal bone‐level changes were assessed with digital subtraction radiographs. The effects of superstructure materials and implants were evaluated with one‐way anova and independent samples t‐test, respectively (α = 0·05). The mean crestal bone loss was found 0·483 mm in 3 months, 0·622 mm in 6 months and 0·816 mm in 12 months. Prosthetic materials were found to have greater effect (β = 0·575, P = 0·015) on crestal bone loss than implant systems (P > 0·05). The porcelain fused to BMA restorations showed higher crestal bone loss than NMA‐based restorations (P = 0·003) at 3 months, (P = 0·038), at 6 months and (P = 0·00) at 12 months; however, crestal bone loss differences between NMA and zirconia were not significant (P = 0·629) at 3 months, (P = 0·974) at 6 months and (P = 1) at 12 months. Within the limitations of this study, our results revealed that rather than the implant systems, prosthetic materials seemed to have an effective role on crestal bone.</abstract><note type="funding">Ege University Scientific Research Project Fund - No. 2007‐DIS‐004; </note><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>fixed partial dentures</topic><topic>superstructure materials</topic><topic>marginal bone loss</topic><topic>radiographic evaluation</topic><topic>digital subtraction method</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>J Oral Rehabil</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Original Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier><part><date>2013</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>40</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>457</start><end>463</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HR5BRFFK-4</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/joor.12054</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR12054</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000344 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000344 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:5DDC26DB0FDB9F7BC6E28ED6EBD0F28F9AB39FD1
|texte= Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |