RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up
Identifieur interne : 000026 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000025; suivant : 000027RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up
Auteurs : Elena A. Nick ; Nele Van Assche ; Wim Coucke ; Wim Teughels ; Marc QuirynenSource :
- Journal of clinical periodontology [ 0303-6979 ] ; 2012.
Descripteurs français
- Pascal (Inist)
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Aim: This 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial compared the clinical, microbiological and biochemical outcome of minimally (Turned, Tur) and moderately rough (TiUnite®, TiU) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. Material and methods: The study population included 14 subjects: nine fully edentulous and five partially edentulous subjects with a history of periodontitis. Implants (n = 78, 39 Tur and 39 TiU) were installed randomly in each patient. Peri-implant clinical parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded after 3 years of loading. Subgingival plaque and peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected and analysed using culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the biofilm, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the concentration of osteoprotegerin and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, respectively. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be observed when comparing the Tur and TiU implant surfaces. Conclusion: After 3 years of loading, in periodontitis susceptible patients, the moderately rough, TiU implants demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the smoother, turned implants. Longer follow-up and studies using different implant types are needed to confirm the statement that minimally and moderately rough implant surfaces perform similar, both from a clinical and from a microbiological point of view.
Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)
Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.
pA |
|
---|
Format Inist (serveur)
NO : | PASCAL 13-0028734 INIST |
---|---|
ET : | RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up |
AU : | NICK (Elena A.); VAN ASSCHE (Nele); COUCKE (Wim); TEUGHELS (Wim); QUIRYNEN (Marc) |
AF : | Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam/Amsterdam/Pays-Bas (1 aut.); Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven/Leuven/Belgique (2 aut., 4 aut., 5 aut.); Department of Clinical Biology, Scientific Institute of Public Health/Brussels/Belgique (3 aut.) |
DT : | Publication en série; Niveau analytique |
SO : | Journal of clinical periodontology; ISSN 0303-6979; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2012; Vol. 39; No. 12; Pp. 1183-1190; Bibl. 1 p.1/2 |
LA : | Anglais |
EA : | Aim: This 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial compared the clinical, microbiological and biochemical outcome of minimally (Turned, Tur) and moderately rough (TiUnite®, TiU) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. Material and methods: The study population included 14 subjects: nine fully edentulous and five partially edentulous subjects with a history of periodontitis. Implants (n = 78, 39 Tur and 39 TiU) were installed randomly in each patient. Peri-implant clinical parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded after 3 years of loading. Subgingival plaque and peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected and analysed using culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the biofilm, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the concentration of osteoprotegerin and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, respectively. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be observed when comparing the Tur and TiU implant surfaces. Conclusion: After 3 years of loading, in periodontitis susceptible patients, the moderately rough, TiU implants demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the smoother, turned implants. Longer follow-up and studies using different implant types are needed to confirm the statement that minimally and moderately rough implant surfaces perform similar, both from a clinical and from a microbiological point of view. |
CC : | 002B10C02; 002B15A |
FD : | Ostéopénie; Implant; Surface; Etude longitudinale; Evaluation; Rugosité; Microbiologie; Dentisterie |
FG : | Pathologie du système ostéoarticulaire |
ED : | Osteopenia; Implant; Surface; Follow up study; Evaluation; Roughness; Microbiology; Dentistry |
EG : | Diseases of the osteoarticular system |
SD : | Osteopenia; Implante; Superficie; Estudio longitudinal; Evaluación; Rugosidad; Microbiología; Odontología |
LO : | INIST-16273.354000505431080090 |
ID : | 13-0028734 |
Links to Exploration step
Pascal:13-0028734Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up</title>
<author><name sortKey="Nick, Elena A" sort="Nick, Elena A" uniqKey="Nick E" first="Elena A." last="Nick">Elena A. Nick</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam</s1>
<s2>Amsterdam</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van Assche, Nele" sort="Van Assche, Nele" uniqKey="Van Assche N" first="Nele" last="Van Assche">Nele Van Assche</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Coucke, Wim" sort="Coucke, Wim" uniqKey="Coucke W" first="Wim" last="Coucke">Wim Coucke</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Clinical Biology, Scientific Institute of Public Health</s1>
<s2>Brussels</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Teughels, Wim" sort="Teughels, Wim" uniqKey="Teughels W" first="Wim" last="Teughels">Wim Teughels</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">13-0028734</idno>
<date when="2012">2012</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 13-0028734 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:13-0028734</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000026</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up</title>
<author><name sortKey="Nick, Elena A" sort="Nick, Elena A" uniqKey="Nick E" first="Elena A." last="Nick">Elena A. Nick</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam</s1>
<s2>Amsterdam</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van Assche, Nele" sort="Van Assche, Nele" uniqKey="Van Assche N" first="Nele" last="Van Assche">Nele Van Assche</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Coucke, Wim" sort="Coucke, Wim" uniqKey="Coucke W" first="Wim" last="Coucke">Wim Coucke</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Clinical Biology, Scientific Institute of Public Health</s1>
<s2>Brussels</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Teughels, Wim" sort="Teughels, Wim" uniqKey="Teughels W" first="Wim" last="Teughels">Wim Teughels</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of clinical periodontology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. clin. periodontol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0303-6979</idno>
<imprint><date when="2012">2012</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Journal of clinical periodontology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. clin. periodontol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0303-6979</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Dentistry</term>
<term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Follow up study</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Microbiology</term>
<term>Osteopenia</term>
<term>Roughness</term>
<term>Surface</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Ostéopénie</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Surface</term>
<term>Etude longitudinale</term>
<term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Rugosité</term>
<term>Microbiologie</term>
<term>Dentisterie</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Aim: This 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial compared the clinical, microbiological and biochemical outcome of minimally (Turned, Tur) and moderately rough (TiUnite®, TiU) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. Material and methods: The study population included 14 subjects: nine fully edentulous and five partially edentulous subjects with a history of periodontitis. Implants (n = 78, 39 Tur and 39 TiU) were installed randomly in each patient. Peri-implant clinical parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded after 3 years of loading. Subgingival plaque and peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected and analysed using culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the biofilm, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the concentration of osteoprotegerin and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, respectively. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be observed when comparing the Tur and TiU implant surfaces. Conclusion: After 3 years of loading, in periodontitis susceptible patients, the moderately rough, TiU implants demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the smoother, turned implants. Longer follow-up and studies using different implant types are needed to confirm the statement that minimally and moderately rough implant surfaces perform similar, both from a clinical and from a microbiological point of view.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0303-6979</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. clin. periodontol.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>39</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>12</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>NICK (Elena A.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>VAN ASSCHE (Nele)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>COUCKE (Wim)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>TEUGHELS (Wim)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="05" i2="1"><s1>QUIRYNEN (Marc)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam</s1>
<s2>Amsterdam</s2>
<s3>NLD</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven</s1>
<s2>Leuven</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Clinical Biology, Scientific Institute of Public Health</s1>
<s2>Brussels</s2>
<s3>BEL</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>1183-1190</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2012</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>16273</s2>
<s5>354000505431080090</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2013 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>1 p.1/2</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>13-0028734</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Journal of clinical periodontology</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>GBR</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Aim: This 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial compared the clinical, microbiological and biochemical outcome of minimally (Turned, Tur) and moderately rough (TiUnite®, TiU) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. Material and methods: The study population included 14 subjects: nine fully edentulous and five partially edentulous subjects with a history of periodontitis. Implants (n = 78, 39 Tur and 39 TiU) were installed randomly in each patient. Peri-implant clinical parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded after 3 years of loading. Subgingival plaque and peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected and analysed using culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the biofilm, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the concentration of osteoprotegerin and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, respectively. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be observed when comparing the Tur and TiU implant surfaces. Conclusion: After 3 years of loading, in periodontitis susceptible patients, the moderately rough, TiU implants demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the smoother, turned implants. Longer follow-up and studies using different implant types are needed to confirm the statement that minimally and moderately rough implant surfaces perform similar, both from a clinical and from a microbiological point of view.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B10C02</s0>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="02" i2="X"><s0>002B15A</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Ostéopénie</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Osteopenia</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Osteopenia</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Implante</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Surface</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Surface</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Superficie</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Etude longitudinale</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Follow up study</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Estudio longitudinal</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Evaluación</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Rugosité</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Roughness</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Rugosidad</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Microbiologie</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Microbiology</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Microbiología</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Dentisterie</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Dentistry</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Odontología</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Pathologie du système ostéoarticulaire</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Sistema osteoarticular patología</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>014</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 13-0028734 INIST</NO>
<ET>RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up</ET>
<AU>NICK (Elena A.); VAN ASSCHE (Nele); COUCKE (Wim); TEUGHELS (Wim); QUIRYNEN (Marc)</AU>
<AF>Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam/Amsterdam/Pays-Bas (1 aut.); Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven/Leuven/Belgique (2 aut., 4 aut., 5 aut.); Department of Clinical Biology, Scientific Institute of Public Health/Brussels/Belgique (3 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Journal of clinical periodontology; ISSN 0303-6979; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2012; Vol. 39; No. 12; Pp. 1183-1190; Bibl. 1 p.1/2</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Aim: This 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial compared the clinical, microbiological and biochemical outcome of minimally (Turned, Tur) and moderately rough (TiUnite®, TiU) implant surfaces in a split-mouth design. Material and methods: The study population included 14 subjects: nine fully edentulous and five partially edentulous subjects with a history of periodontitis. Implants (n = 78, 39 Tur and 39 TiU) were installed randomly in each patient. Peri-implant clinical parameters and intra-oral radiographs were recorded after 3 years of loading. Subgingival plaque and peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected and analysed using culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the biofilm, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the concentration of osteoprotegerin and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, respectively. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical, microbiological and biochemical parameters could be observed when comparing the Tur and TiU implant surfaces. Conclusion: After 3 years of loading, in periodontitis susceptible patients, the moderately rough, TiU implants demonstrated a similar clinical outcome compared with the smoother, turned implants. Longer follow-up and studies using different implant types are needed to confirm the statement that minimally and moderately rough implant surfaces perform similar, both from a clinical and from a microbiological point of view.</EA>
<CC>002B10C02; 002B15A</CC>
<FD>Ostéopénie; Implant; Surface; Etude longitudinale; Evaluation; Rugosité; Microbiologie; Dentisterie</FD>
<FG>Pathologie du système ostéoarticulaire</FG>
<ED>Osteopenia; Implant; Surface; Follow up study; Evaluation; Roughness; Microbiology; Dentistry</ED>
<EG>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</EG>
<SD>Osteopenia; Implante; Superficie; Estudio longitudinal; Evaluación; Rugosidad; Microbiología; Odontología</SD>
<LO>INIST-16273.354000505431080090</LO>
<ID>13-0028734</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000026 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000026 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Santé |area= EdenteV1 |flux= PascalFrancis |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= Pascal:13-0028734 |texte= RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically oxidized surfaces: A pilot study, a 3-year follow-up }}
This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |