A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic
Identifieur interne : 000728 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000727; suivant : 000729A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic
Auteurs : H. De Bruyn ; B. Collaert ; U. Lindh ; L. FlygareSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 1992-03.
Abstract
The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, H" sort="De Bruyn, H" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="H." last="De Bruyn">H. De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, B" sort="Collaert, B" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="B." last="Collaert">B. Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Periodontology,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lindh, U" sort="Lindh, U" uniqKey="Lindh U" first="U." last="Lindh">U. Lindh</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Flygare, L" sort="Flygare, L" uniqKey="Flygare L" first="L." last="Flygare">L. Flygare</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78</idno><date when="1992" year="1992">1992</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000728</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000728</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, H" sort="De Bruyn, H" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="H." last="De Bruyn">H. De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, B" sort="Collaert, B" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="B." last="Collaert">B. Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Departments of Periodontology,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lindh, U" sort="Lindh, U" uniqKey="Lindh U" first="U." last="Lindh">U. Lindh</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Prosthodontics and</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Flygare, L" sort="Flygare, L" uniqKey="Flygare L" first="L." last="Flygare">L. Flygare</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="32">32</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="41">41</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1992-03">1992-03</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>H. De Bruyn</name><affiliations><json:string>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B. Collaert</name><affiliations><json:string>Departments of Periodontology,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>U. Lindh</name><affiliations><json:string>Prosthodontics and</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>L. Flygare</name><affiliations><json:string>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>osseointegration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>titanium</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>marginal bone loss</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR030106</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-C87K1P6N-R</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.05</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>556 x 742 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>272</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1726</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><pmid><json:string>1420725</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>32</first><last>41</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1992</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-C87K1P6N-R</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</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 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - anesthesie. reanimation. transfusion. therapie cellulaire et therapie genique</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1992</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1992</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x</json:string></doi><id>0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1992-03"></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">A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><title level="a" type="short">Clinical efficacy of Screw Vent versus Brånemark implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">H.</forename><surname>De Bruyn</surname></persName><affiliation>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">B.</forename><surname>Collaert</surname></persName><affiliation>Departments of Periodontology,</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">U.</forename><surname>Lindh</surname></persName><affiliation>Prosthodontics and</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">L.</forename><surname>Flygare</surname></persName><affiliation>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-C87K1P6N-R</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR030106</idno><idno type="supplier"></idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR030106.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.1992.3.issue-1</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="32">32</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="41">41</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1992-03"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">osseointegration</term><term xml:id="k3">titanium</term><term xml:id="k4">marginal bone loss</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="03001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.1992.3.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="3">3</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1992-03">March 1992</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0003200" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR030106"></id><id type="supplier" value=""></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="32">32</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="41">41</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>H. De Bruyn, Periodontal Practice, Basilieklaan 373 box 14, B‐1080 Brussels, Belgium</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR030106.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 24 November 1991</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title><title type="shortAuthors">De Bruyn et al.</title><title type="short">Clinical efficacy of Screw Vent versus Brånemark implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>H.</givenNames><familyName>De Bruyn</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>B.</givenNames><familyName>Collaert</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>U.</givenNames><familyName>Lindh</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>L.</givenNames><familyName>Flygare</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>Departments of Periodontology,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3"><unparsedAffiliation>Prosthodontics and</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">osseointegration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">titanium</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">marginal bone loss</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Clinical efficacy of Screw Vent versus Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H.</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><affiliation>Periodontal Practice, Brussels, Belgium,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Collaert</namePart><affiliation>Departments of Periodontology,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">U.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lindh</namePart><affiliation>Prosthodontics and</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Flygare</namePart><affiliation>0ral Radiology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden</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>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1992-03</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 24 November 1991</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1992</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The clinical success of 85 Screw Vent® and 107 Bråemark® implants, consecutively installed in a private periodontal clinic under the same conditions and by the same operator, is compared. Mobile implants were removed and considered as failures. Intraoral radiographs were assessed for the presence of peri‐implant radiolucencies and for analysis of bone loss after functional loading. 85 Screw Vent implants were installed in 31 patients. Of 23 implants installed in 9 mandibles, none failed after 16.8 (range 12–25) months of function. Of 62 Screw Vent implants installed in 23 maxillae, 6 failed at abutment connection, 1 failed after 2 months and 2 after 13 months of function. The absolute failure rate after 13.2 (range 6–24) months was 9162. Mean loss of bone was 1.47 mm (‐l.O–+4) after 12 months of functional loading. 107 Brånemark fixtures were installed in 25 patients. Of 51 fixtures inserted in 12 mandibles, none failed; of 56 fixtures installed in 13 maxillae 1 failed before and 2 failed during abutment connection. The absolute failure is 3156. All remaining fixtures were immobile after loading. 13 fixtures were more than 6 months in function. Only short‐term comparison between both systems is possible because the observation time is longer for the Screw Vent implants. In the 1st year, only 1 implant system was available to the periodontist. Short‐term comparison reveals 11.3% versus 5.3% of cumulative failure after 6 months for the Screw Vent and Brånemark implants, respectively. The results indicate that clinical efficacy is as effectively obtained with Screw Vent as with Brånemark implants in the mandible. The outcome of treatment with Screw Vent implants in the maxilla seems less predictable.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>osseointegration</topic><topic>titanium</topic><topic>marginal bone loss</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</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><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>1992</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>3</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>32</start><end>41</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-C87K1P6N-R</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030106.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR030106</identifier><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><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000728 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000728 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0EDE01078E6FD666182929C653093FD3919D8B78
|texte= A comparative study of the clinical efficacy of Screw Vent irnnlants versus Brånemark fixtures, installed in a periodontal clinic
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |