EdenteV1, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 000371

Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible

Identifieur interne : 000371 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000370; suivant : 000372

Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible

Auteurs : Byung-Ho Choi ; JINGXU LI ; Han-Sung Kim ; Chang-Yong Ko ; Seung-Mi Jeong ; FENG XUAN

Source :

Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics [ 1079-2104 ] ; 2008.

RBID : Pascal:08-0258241

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Etude comparative, Implant, Lambeau, Réflexion, Animal, Chien, Canine, Mandibule, Traitement.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Animal, Comparative study, Cuspid, Dog, Flap (surgery), Implant, Mandible, Reflection, Treatment.

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 1079-2104`
A03		`1`		`@0 Oral surg. oral med. oral pathol. oral radiol. endo.`
A05				`@2 105`
A06				`@2 5`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 CHOI (Byung-Ho)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 JINGXU LI`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 KIM (Han-Sung)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 KO (Chang-Yong)`
A11	`05`	`1`		`@1 JEONG (Seung-Mi)`
A11	`06`	`1`		`@1 FENG XUAN`
A14	`01`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University @3 INC @Z 1 aut.`
A14	`02`			`@1 Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine @3 INC @Z 2 aut. @Z 5 aut. @Z 6 aut.`
A14	`03`			`@1 Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University @3 INC @Z 3 aut. @Z 4 aut.`
A20				`@1 561-565`
A21				`@1 2008`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 5101 @5 354000195907290050`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2008 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 25 ref.`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 08-0258241`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics`
A66	`01`			`@0 USA`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.
C02	`01`	`X`		`@0 002B10`
C03	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Etude comparative @5 07`
C03	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Comparative study @5 07`
C03	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Estudio comparativo @5 07`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Implant @5 08`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Implant @5 08`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Implante @5 08`
C03	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Lambeau @5 09`
C03	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Flap (surgery) @5 09`
C03	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Colgajo @5 09`
C03	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Réflexion @5 13`
C03	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Reflection @5 13`
C03	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Reflexión @5 13`
C03	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Animal @5 14`
C03	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Animal @5 14`
C03	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Animal @5 14`
C03	`06`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Chien @5 15`
C03	`06`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Dog @5 15`
C03	`06`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Perro @5 15`
C03	`07`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Canine @5 16`
C03	`07`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Cuspid @5 16`
C03	`07`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Canino @5 16`
C03	`08`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Mandibule @5 17`
C03	`08`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Mandible @5 17`
C03	`08`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Mandíbula @5 17`
C03	`09`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Traitement @5 30`
C03	`09`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Treatment @5 30`
C03	`09`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Tratamiento @5 30`
C07	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Fissipedia @2 NS`
C07	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Fissipedia @2 NS`
C07	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Fissipedia @2 NS`
C07	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Carnivora @2 NS`
C07	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Carnivora @2 NS`
C07	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Carnivora @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Mammalia @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Mammalia @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Mammalia @2 NS`
C07	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
C07	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
C07	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
C07	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Chirurgie @5 37`
C07	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Surgery @5 37`
C07	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Cirugía @5 37`
N21				`@1 162`
N44	`01`			`@1 OTO`
N82				`@1 OTO`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 08-0258241 INIST
ET :	Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible
AU :	CHOI (Byung-Ho); JINGXU LI; KIM (Han-Sung); KO (Chang-Yong); JEONG (Seung-Mi); FENG XUAN
AF :	Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University/Inconnu (1 aut.); Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine/Inconnu (2 aut., 5 aut., 6 aut.); Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University/Inconnu (3 aut., 4 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics; ISSN 1079-2104; Etats-Unis; Da. 2008; Vol. 105; No. 5; Pp. 561-565; Bibl. 25 ref.
LA :	Anglais
EA :	Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.
CC :	002B10
FD :	Etude comparative; Implant; Lambeau; Réflexion; Animal; Chien; Canine; Mandibule; Traitement
FG :	Fissipedia; Carnivora; Mammalia; Vertebrata; Chirurgie
ED :	Comparative study; Implant; Flap (surgery); Reflection; Animal; Dog; Cuspid; Mandible; Treatment
EG :	Fissipedia; Carnivora; Mammalia; Vertebrata; Surgery
SD :	Estudio comparativo; Implante; Colgajo; Reflexión; Animal; Perro; Canino; Mandíbula; Tratamiento
LO :	INIST-5101.354000195907290050
ID :	08-0258241

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:08-0258241

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible</title>
<author><name sortKey="Choi, Byung Ho" sort="Choi, Byung Ho" uniqKey="Choi B" first="Byung-Ho" last="Choi">Byung-Ho Choi</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jingxu Li" sort="Jingxu Li" uniqKey="Jingxu Li" last="Jingxu Li">JINGXU LI</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kim, Han Sung" sort="Kim, Han Sung" uniqKey="Kim H" first="Han-Sung" last="Kim">Han-Sung Kim</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ko, Chang Yong" sort="Ko, Chang Yong" uniqKey="Ko C" first="Chang-Yong" last="Ko">Chang-Yong Ko</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jeong, Seung Mi" sort="Jeong, Seung Mi" uniqKey="Jeong S" first="Seung-Mi" last="Jeong">Seung-Mi Jeong</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Feng Xuan" sort="Feng Xuan" uniqKey="Feng Xuan" last="Feng Xuan">FENG XUAN</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">08-0258241</idno>
<date when="2008">2008</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 08-0258241 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:08-0258241</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000371</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible</title>
<author><name sortKey="Choi, Byung Ho" sort="Choi, Byung Ho" uniqKey="Choi B" first="Byung-Ho" last="Choi">Byung-Ho Choi</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jingxu Li" sort="Jingxu Li" uniqKey="Jingxu Li" last="Jingxu Li">JINGXU LI</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kim, Han Sung" sort="Kim, Han Sung" uniqKey="Kim H" first="Han-Sung" last="Kim">Han-Sung Kim</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ko, Chang Yong" sort="Ko, Chang Yong" uniqKey="Ko C" first="Chang-Yong" last="Ko">Chang-Yong Ko</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jeong, Seung Mi" sort="Jeong, Seung Mi" uniqKey="Jeong S" first="Seung-Mi" last="Jeong">Seung-Mi Jeong</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Feng Xuan" sort="Feng Xuan" uniqKey="Feng Xuan" last="Feng Xuan">FENG XUAN</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Oral surg. oral med. oral pathol. oral radiol. endo.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1079-2104</idno>
<imprint><date when="2008">2008</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Oral surg. oral med. oral pathol. oral radiol. endo.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1079-2104</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Animal</term>
<term>Comparative study</term>
<term>Cuspid</term>
<term>Dog</term>
<term>Flap (surgery)</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Mandible</term>
<term>Reflection</term>
<term>Treatment</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Etude comparative</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Lambeau</term>
<term>Réflexion</term>
<term>Animal</term>
<term>Chien</term>
<term>Canine</term>
<term>Mandibule</term>
<term>Traitement</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>1079-2104</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>Oral surg. oral med. oral pathol. oral radiol. endo.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>105</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>5</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>CHOI (Byung-Ho)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>JINGXU LI</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>KIM (Han-Sung)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>KO (Chang-Yong)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="05" i2="1"><s1>JEONG (Seung-Mi)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="06" i2="1"><s1>FENG XUAN</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>6 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University</s1>
<s3>INC</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>561-565</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2008</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>5101</s2>
<s5>354000195907290050</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2008 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>25 ref.</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>08-0258241</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B10</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Etude comparative</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Comparative study</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Estudio comparativo</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Implante</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Lambeau</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Flap (surgery)</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Colgajo</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Réflexion</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Reflection</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Reflexión</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Animal</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Animal</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Animal</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Chien</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Dog</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Perro</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Canine</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Cuspid</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Canino</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Mandibule</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Mandible</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Mandíbula</s0>
<s5>17</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Traitement</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Treatment</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tratamiento</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Fissipedia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Fissipedia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Fissipedia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Carnivora</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Carnivora</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Carnivora</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Mammalia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Mammalia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Mammalia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Chirurgie</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Surgery</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Cirugía</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>162</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 08-0258241 INIST</NO>
<ET>Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible</ET>
<AU>CHOI (Byung-Ho); JINGXU LI; KIM (Han-Sung); KO (Chang-Yong); JEONG (Seung-Mi); FENG XUAN</AU>
<AF>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University/Inconnu (1 aut.); Department of Dentistry, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine/Inconnu (2 aut., 5 aut., 6 aut.); Department of Biomedical Engineering. College of Health Science, Institute of Medical Engineering, Yonsei University/Inconnu (3 aut., 4 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics; ISSN 1079-2104; Etats-Unis; Da. 2008; Vol. 105; No. 5; Pp. 561-565; Bibl. 25 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing around submerged and nonsubmerged implants installed in a canine mandible model using a flapless technique. Study design. Bilateral, edentulated, flat alveolar ridges were created in the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 2 implants were placed in 1 side by either miniflap submerged or flapless nonsubmerged procedures. After healing for an additional 8 weeks, microcomputerized tomography at the implantation site was performed. Osseointegration was calculated as the percent of the implant surface in contact with bone. Bone height was measured in the peri-implant bone. Results. The mean osseointegration was greater (64.7%) in miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (56.8%; P <.05). The mean peri-implant bone height was greater (11.0 mm) in the miniflap submerged sites than in the flapless nonsubmerged sites (10.1 mm; P <.05). Conclusion. This study demonstrated that the submerged procedure was more effective than the nonsubmerged procedure in improving implant anchorage in the early phase after implant placement.</EA>
<CC>002B10</CC>
<FD>Etude comparative; Implant; Lambeau; Réflexion; Animal; Chien; Canine; Mandibule; Traitement</FD>
<FG>Fissipedia; Carnivora; Mammalia; Vertebrata; Chirurgie</FG>
<ED>Comparative study; Implant; Flap (surgery); Reflection; Animal; Dog; Cuspid; Mandible; Treatment</ED>
<EG>Fissipedia; Carnivora; Mammalia; Vertebrata; Surgery</EG>
<SD>Estudio comparativo; Implante; Colgajo; Reflexión; Animal; Perro; Canino; Mandíbula; Tratamiento</SD>
<LO>INIST-5101.354000195907290050</LO>
<ID>08-0258241</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 000371 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000371 | 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:08-0258241
   |texte=   Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33.
Data generation: Mon Dec 4 11:02:15 2017. Site generation: Tue Sep 29 19:14:38 2020

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté (maquette)
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté (maquette)

Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible

Comparison of submerged and nonsubmerged implants placed without flap reflection in the canine mandible

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri