A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants
Identifieur interne : 000739 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000738; suivant : 000740A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants
Auteurs : Henny J. A. Meijer ; Gerry M. Raghoebar ; Martin A. Van'T Hof ; Anita VisserSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2004-08.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Acrylic resin, Aftercare, Bone level, Branemark, Branemark implants, Clin, Clinical aspects, Clinical evaluation, Clinical implant performance scale, Clinical trial, Dental implants, Denture, Denture base, Different implant systems, Edentulous, Endosseous implants, Functional loading, Geertman, Gingiva index, Groningen, Impl, Implant, Implant length, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, International journal, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular bone height, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofacial, Meijer, Minor complications, Multiple prosthetic revisions, Nemark, Nemark implants, Nemark implants meijer, Oort, Oral impl, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofacial implants, Osseointegration period, Overdenture, Overdentures, Panoramic radiographs, Possible score, Precision attachment system, Prospective study, Prosthetic, Prosthetic aftercare, Prosthetic dentistry, Raghoebar, Surgical, Survival rate, Total number, University hospital groningen.
- Teeft :
- Acrylic resin, Aftercare, Bone level, Branemark, Branemark implants, Clin, Clinical aspects, Clinical evaluation, Clinical implant performance scale, Clinical trial, Dental implants, Denture, Denture base, Different implant systems, Edentulous, Endosseous implants, Functional loading, Geertman, Gingiva index, Groningen, Impl, Implant, Implant length, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, International journal, Lower denture, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular bone height, Mandibular overdentures, Maxillofacial, Meijer, Minor complications, Multiple prosthetic revisions, Nemark, Nemark implants, Nemark implants meijer, Oort, Oral impl, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofacial implants, Osseointegration period, Overdenture, Overdentures, Panoramic radiographs, Possible score, Precision attachment system, Prospective study, Prosthetic, Prosthetic aftercare, Prosthetic dentistry, Raghoebar, Surgical, Survival rate, Total number, University hospital groningen.
Abstract
Abstract: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (n=29) or the Brånemark group (n=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van T Hof, Martin A" sort="Van T Hof, Martin A" uniqKey="Van T Hof M" first="Martin A." last="Van'T Hof">Martin A. Van'T Hof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Visser, Anita" sort="Visser, Anita" uniqKey="Visser A" first="Anita" last="Visser">Anita Visser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C</idno><date when="2004" year="2004">2004</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000739</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000739</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title><author><name sortKey="Meijer, Henny J A" sort="Meijer, Henny J A" uniqKey="Meijer H" first="Henny J. A." last="Meijer">Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Raghoebar, Gerry M" sort="Raghoebar, Gerry M" uniqKey="Raghoebar G" first="Gerry M." last="Raghoebar">Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van T Hof, Martin A" sort="Van T Hof, Martin A" uniqKey="Van T Hof M" first="Martin A." last="Van'T Hof">Martin A. Van'T Hof</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Visser, Anita" sort="Visser, Anita" uniqKey="Visser A" first="Anita" last="Visser">Anita Visser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</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">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="421">421</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="427">427</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-08">2004-08</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Acrylic resin</term><term>Aftercare</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical aspects</term><term>Clinical evaluation</term><term>Clinical implant performance scale</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture base</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Functional loading</term><term>Geertman</term><term>Gingiva index</term><term>Groningen</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular bone height</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Meijer</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Multiple prosthetic revisions</term><term>Nemark</term><term>Nemark implants</term><term>Nemark implants meijer</term><term>Oort</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Osseointegration period</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Panoramic radiographs</term><term>Possible score</term><term>Precision attachment system</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic aftercare</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Raghoebar</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Total number</term><term>University hospital groningen</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Acrylic resin</term><term>Aftercare</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical aspects</term><term>Clinical evaluation</term><term>Clinical implant performance scale</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture base</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Functional loading</term><term>Geertman</term><term>Gingiva index</term><term>Groningen</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lower denture</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular bone height</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Meijer</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Multiple prosthetic revisions</term><term>Nemark</term><term>Nemark implants</term><term>Nemark implants meijer</term><term>Oort</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Osseointegration period</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Panoramic radiographs</term><term>Possible score</term><term>Precision attachment system</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic aftercare</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Raghoebar</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Total number</term><term>University hospital groningen</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (n=29) or the Brånemark group (n=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>aftercare</json:string><json:string>nemark</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>meijer</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>groningen</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>raghoebar</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>prosthetic aftercare</json:string><json:string>geertman</json:string><json:string>oort</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>clinical aspects</json:string><json:string>nemark implants</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>nemark implants meijer</json:string><json:string>clinical trial</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>clinical implant performance scale</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>osseointegration period</json:string><json:string>possible score</json:string><json:string>clinical evaluation</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>denture base</json:string><json:string>university hospital groningen</json:string><json:string>lower denture</json:string><json:string>endosseous implants</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>acrylic resin</json:string><json:string>gingiva index</json:string><json:string>functional loading</json:string><json:string>panoramic radiographs</json:string><json:string>mandibular bone height</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>total number</json:string><json:string>different implant systems</json:string><json:string>precision attachment system</json:string><json:string>multiple prosthetic revisions</json:string><json:string>implant length</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>branemark implants</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>minor complications</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Martin A. Van't Hof</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Anita Visser</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>aftercare</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>clinical aspects</value></json:item><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>overdenture</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR1024</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-DTQXZPNK-5</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (n=29) or the Brånemark group (n=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.675</score><pdfWordCount>4611</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30092</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 782 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>172</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1123</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title><pmid><json:string>15248876</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>15</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>421</first><last>427</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>3 and 1/2</json:string><json:string>2004</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University Hospital Groningen</json:string><json:string>University of Groningen</json:string><json:string>Preat Corporation</json:string><json:string>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry</json:string><json:string>Groningen The Netherlands Tel</json:string><json:string>The International Journal</json:string><json:string>University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands Martin A</json:string><json:string>University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Correspondence</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Van Lier</json:string><json:string>T. Bra</json:string><json:string>H. J. A. Meijer</json:string><json:string>Anita Visser</json:string><json:string>Van Oosten</json:string><json:string>J. A. Meijer</json:string><json:string>Gerry M. Raghoebar</json:string><json:string>Van Waas</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Groningen</json:string><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>Delphi</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Santa Ynez</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string><json:string>M.A.</json:string><json:string>Nijmegen</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>CA</json:string><json:string>Hof</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Biel</json:string><json:string>Netherlands</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Chao et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Barmes 1990</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. (1999)</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. (1998)</json:string><json:string>Boerrigter et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Versteegh et al. (1995)</json:string><json:string>Watson et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Stalblad et al. (1985)</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al. (2001)</json:string><json:string>Kirsch & Mentag 1986</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al</json:string><json:string>Watson et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Hemmings et al. (1994)</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. 2000, 2001</json:string><json:string>MericskeStern et al. (2001)</json:string><json:string>Van Waas et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Bra 1985</json:string><json:string>Wismeyer et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Antczak-Bouckoms & Chalmers 1988</json:string><json:string>Milholland et al. 1973</json:string><json:string>Geertman et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Visser et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. (1994)</json:string><json:string>Zielhuis et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Ferrigno et al. (2002)</json:string><json:string>Geertman et al. (1996)</json:string><json:string>Hemmings et al. 1994</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-DTQXZPNK-5</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></categories><publicationDate>2004</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2004</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x</json:string></doi><id>0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-08"></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 controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title><title level="a" type="short">IMZ implants vs. Brånemark implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Henny J. A.</forename><surname>Meijer</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Gerry M.</forename><surname>Raghoebar</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Martin A.</forename><surname>Van't Hof</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Anita</forename><surname>Visser</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-DTQXZPNK-5</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR1024</idno><idno type="supplier">1024</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR1024.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.2004.15.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">15</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="421">421</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="427">427</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2004-08"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract: </hi> The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=29) or the Brånemark group (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Le but de cet essai clinique contrôlé randomisé et prospectif a été d'évaluer les conséquences cliniques et prothétiques chez des patients édentés avec une prothèse mandibulaire retenue par deux implants IMZ ou <hi rend="italic">ad modum</hi> Branemark durant une décennie. Les patients ont été répartis soit dans le groupe IMZ (n=29) soit le Branemark (n=32) par ordinateur. Dans le groupe IMZ, quatre implants ont été perdu durant cette décennie ce qui signifie un taux de survie de 93%. Dans le groupe Branemark, neuf implants ont été perdus entraînant un taux de survie de 86%. Tous les patients ont été réopérés avec succès. Des révisions prothétiques multiples ont été nécessaires dans les deux groupes; le système d'attache de précision dans la prothèse (23% du nombre total des révisions) et la base de la prothèse et les dents (26% du nombre total des révisions) sujets à de multiples fractures. Tant les implants IMZ que les Branemark sont des implants permettant de fixer une prothèse qui fonctionne bien après une décennie. Il n'y avait aucune indication d'une dégradation de l'état clinique ou radiographique après cette durée.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Das Ziel dieser randomisierten prospektiven und kontrollierten klinischen Studie war, die Befunde der prothetischen Nachsorge bei zahnlosen Patienten auszuwerten, die über eine Zeitspanne von 10 Jahren eine Unterkieferhybridprothese auf zwei IMZ‐Implantaten oder zwei Brånemarkimplantaten getragen hatten. Die Patienten ordnete man mit einem komputergesteuerten Auswahlverfahren der IMZ‐Gruppe (n=29) oder der Brånemark‐Gruppe (n=32) zu. In der IMZ‐Gruppe gingen in der 10‐jährigen Versuchsphase vier Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 93%). In der Brånemark‐Gruppe gingen neun Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 86%). All diese Patienten konnten erfolgreich nachoperiert werden. In beiden Gruppen waren zusätzlich verschiedene prothetische Eingriffe nötig. Insbesondere das Präzisions der Hybridprothesen (23% aller Reparaturen) und die Prothesenbasis und ‐zähne (26% aller Reparaturen) mussten öfters wegen Frakturen repariert oder ersetzt werden. Aus dieser Studie kann man schliessen, dass sich sowohl das IMZ‐System wie auch das Brånemarksystem gut eignen, um eine Hybridprothese über eine 10 jährige Beobachtungszeit zu fixieren. Es gibt nach 10 Jahren keine Anzeichen einer Verschlechterung des klinischen oder des röntgenologischen Zustandes.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>La intención de este ensayo clínico controlado prospectivo aleatorio fue evaluar los resultados clínicos cuidados protésicos de pacientes edéntulos con dentadura mandibular retenida por dos implantes IMZ o Brånemark durante un periodo de diez años. Los pacientes se alojaron en el grupo IMZ (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=29) o Brånemark (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=32) por medio de un método de balanceo computarizado. En el grupo IMZ se perdieron cuatro implantes durante lo diez años de seguimiento (índice de supervivencia: 93%). En el grupo Brånemark se perdieron nueve implantes (índice de supervivencia: 86%). Todos los pacientes fueron reoperados con éxito. Se necesitaron múltiples revisiones protésicas en ambos grupos, especialmente el sistema de atache de precisión en la sobredentadura (23% del número total de revisiones) y la base y los dientes de la sobredentadura (26% del número total de revisiones) sufrieron frecuentes fracturas. De este estudio se puede concluir que tanto el sistema de implantes IMZ como el sistema de implantes Brånemark soportando una sobredentadura funcionan bien tras diez años de seguimiento. No hay indicaciones de empeoramiento del estado clínico o radiográfico tras diez años.</p><p>
<graphic url="image_n/CLR_1024_fu1.gif" rend="inline image"></graphic>
</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">aftercare</term><term xml:id="k2">clinical aspects</term><term xml:id="k3">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k4">overdenture</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/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/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 version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</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="08004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2004.15.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="15">15</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2004-08">August 2004</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR1024"></id><id type="supplier" value="1024"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2004-05-19"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2004-09-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" 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="421">421</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="427">427</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Correspondence to:</b>
<i>Dr H. J. A. Meijer</i>
Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics
University Hospital Groningen
PO Box 30.001
9700 RB Groningen
The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 (0)50 3612167
Fax: 31 (0)50 3611136
e‐mail: <email normalForm="h.j.a.meijer@kchir.azg.nl">h.j.a.meijer@kchir.azg.nl</email>
</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR1024.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> Accepted 5 July 2003</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="6"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="27"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="6623"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="29"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title><title type="shortAuthors">Meijer et al.</title><title type="short">IMZ implants vs. Brånemark implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Henny J. A.</givenNames><familyName>Meijer</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Gerry M.</givenNames><familyName>Raghoebar</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Martin A.</givenNames><familyName>Van't Hof</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Anita</givenNames><familyName>Visser</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">aftercare</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">clinical aspects</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">overdenture</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract: </b> The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (<i>n</i>=29) or the Brånemark group (<i>n</i>=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.</p><!--
To cite this article:
Meijer HJA, Raghoebar GM, Van't Hof MA, Visser A. A controlled clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x
--></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Le but de cet essai clinique contrôlé randomisé et prospectif a été d'évaluer les conséquences cliniques et prothétiques chez des patients édentés avec une prothèse mandibulaire retenue par deux implants IMZ ou <i>ad modum</i> Branemark durant une décennie. Les patients ont été répartis soit dans le groupe IMZ (n=29) soit le Branemark (n=32) par ordinateur. Dans le groupe IMZ, quatre implants ont été perdu durant cette décennie ce qui signifie un taux de survie de 93%. Dans le groupe Branemark, neuf implants ont été perdus entraînant un taux de survie de 86%. Tous les patients ont été réopérés avec succès. Des révisions prothétiques multiples ont été nécessaires dans les deux groupes; le système d'attache de précision dans la prothèse (23% du nombre total des révisions) et la base de la prothèse et les dents (26% du nombre total des révisions) sujets à de multiples fractures. Tant les implants IMZ que les Branemark sont des implants permettant de fixer une prothèse qui fonctionne bien après une décennie. Il n'y avait aucune indication d'une dégradation de l'état clinique ou radiographique après cette durée.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Das Ziel dieser randomisierten prospektiven und kontrollierten klinischen Studie war, die Befunde der prothetischen Nachsorge bei zahnlosen Patienten auszuwerten, die über eine Zeitspanne von 10 Jahren eine Unterkieferhybridprothese auf zwei IMZ‐Implantaten oder zwei Brånemarkimplantaten getragen hatten. Die Patienten ordnete man mit einem komputergesteuerten Auswahlverfahren der IMZ‐Gruppe (n=29) oder der Brånemark‐Gruppe (n=32) zu. In der IMZ‐Gruppe gingen in der 10‐jährigen Versuchsphase vier Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 93%). In der Brånemark‐Gruppe gingen neun Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 86%). All diese Patienten konnten erfolgreich nachoperiert werden. In beiden Gruppen waren zusätzlich verschiedene prothetische Eingriffe nötig. Insbesondere das Präzisions der Hybridprothesen (23% aller Reparaturen) und die Prothesenbasis und ‐zähne (26% aller Reparaturen) mussten öfters wegen Frakturen repariert oder ersetzt werden. Aus dieser Studie kann man schliessen, dass sich sowohl das IMZ‐System wie auch das Brånemarksystem gut eignen, um eine Hybridprothese über eine 10 jährige Beobachtungszeit zu fixieren. Es gibt nach 10 Jahren keine Anzeichen einer Verschlechterung des klinischen oder des röntgenologischen Zustandes.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>La intención de este ensayo clínico controlado prospectivo aleatorio fue evaluar los resultados clínicos cuidados protésicos de pacientes edéntulos con dentadura mandibular retenida por dos implantes IMZ o Brånemark durante un periodo de diez años. Los pacientes se alojaron en el grupo IMZ (<i>n</i>=29) o Brånemark (<i>n</i>=32) por medio de un método de balanceo computarizado. En el grupo IMZ se perdieron cuatro implantes durante lo diez años de seguimiento (índice de supervivencia: 93%). En el grupo Brånemark se perdieron nueve implantes (índice de supervivencia: 86%). Todos los pacientes fueron reoperados con éxito. Se necesitaron múltiples revisiones protésicas en ambos grupos, especialmente el sistema de atache de precisión en la sobredentadura (23% del número total de revisiones) y la base y los dientes de la sobredentadura (26% del número total de revisiones) sufrieron frecuentes fracturas. De este estudio se puede concluir que tanto el sistema de implantes IMZ como el sistema de implantes Brånemark soportando una sobredentadura funcionan bien tras diez años de seguimiento. No hay indicaciones de empeoramiento del estado clínico o radiográfico tras diez años.</p><p> <inlineGraphic alt="inline image" location="image_n/CLR_1024_fu1.gif" href=""></inlineGraphic> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>IMZ implants vs. Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Henny J. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Meijer</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands and Department of Oral Function, Dental School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gerry M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Raghoebar</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Martin A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van't Hof</namePart><affiliation>Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Anita</namePart><namePart type="family">Visser</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral–Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands</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">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2004-08</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 5 July 2003</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2004</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">6</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">27</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">29</extent><extent unit="words">6623</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prosthetic aftercare of edentulous patients with a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ implants or two Brånemark implants during a 10‐year period. Patients were allocated to the IMZ group (n=29) or the Brånemark group (n=32) by a computerized balancing method. In the IMZ group, four implants were lost during the 10‐year follow‐up (survival rate: 93%). In the Brånemark group, nine implants were lost (survival rate: 86%). All patients were re‐operated successfully. Multiple prosthetic revisions were necessary in both groups; especially the precision attachment system in the overdenture (23% of the total number of revisions) and the denture base and teeth (26% of the total number of revisions) were subject to frequent fracture. From this study, it can be concluded that both the IMZ implant and the Brånemark implant systems supporting an overdenture are functioning well after 10 years of follow‐up. There are no indications of a worsening of clinical or radiographical state after 10 years.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Le but de cet essai clinique contrôlé randomisé et prospectif a été d'évaluer les conséquences cliniques et prothétiques chez des patients édentés avec une prothèse mandibulaire retenue par deux implants IMZ ou ad modum Branemark durant une décennie. Les patients ont été répartis soit dans le groupe IMZ (n=29) soit le Branemark (n=32) par ordinateur. Dans le groupe IMZ, quatre implants ont été perdu durant cette décennie ce qui signifie un taux de survie de 93%. Dans le groupe Branemark, neuf implants ont été perdus entraînant un taux de survie de 86%. Tous les patients ont été réopérés avec succès. Des révisions prothétiques multiples ont été nécessaires dans les deux groupes; le système d'attache de précision dans la prothèse (23% du nombre total des révisions) et la base de la prothèse et les dents (26% du nombre total des révisions) sujets à de multiples fractures. Tant les implants IMZ que les Branemark sont des implants permettant de fixer une prothèse qui fonctionne bien après une décennie. Il n'y avait aucune indication d'une dégradation de l'état clinique ou radiographique après cette durée.</abstract><abstract lang="de">Das Ziel dieser randomisierten prospektiven und kontrollierten klinischen Studie war, die Befunde der prothetischen Nachsorge bei zahnlosen Patienten auszuwerten, die über eine Zeitspanne von 10 Jahren eine Unterkieferhybridprothese auf zwei IMZ‐Implantaten oder zwei Brånemarkimplantaten getragen hatten. Die Patienten ordnete man mit einem komputergesteuerten Auswahlverfahren der IMZ‐Gruppe (n=29) oder der Brånemark‐Gruppe (n=32) zu. In der IMZ‐Gruppe gingen in der 10‐jährigen Versuchsphase vier Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 93%). In der Brånemark‐Gruppe gingen neun Implantate verloren (Überlebensrate von 86%). All diese Patienten konnten erfolgreich nachoperiert werden. In beiden Gruppen waren zusätzlich verschiedene prothetische Eingriffe nötig. Insbesondere das Präzisions der Hybridprothesen (23% aller Reparaturen) und die Prothesenbasis und ‐zähne (26% aller Reparaturen) mussten öfters wegen Frakturen repariert oder ersetzt werden. Aus dieser Studie kann man schliessen, dass sich sowohl das IMZ‐System wie auch das Brånemarksystem gut eignen, um eine Hybridprothese über eine 10 jährige Beobachtungszeit zu fixieren. Es gibt nach 10 Jahren keine Anzeichen einer Verschlechterung des klinischen oder des röntgenologischen Zustandes.</abstract><abstract lang="es">La intención de este ensayo clínico controlado prospectivo aleatorio fue evaluar los resultados clínicos cuidados protésicos de pacientes edéntulos con dentadura mandibular retenida por dos implantes IMZ o Brånemark durante un periodo de diez años. Los pacientes se alojaron en el grupo IMZ (n=29) o Brånemark (n=32) por medio de un método de balanceo computarizado. En el grupo IMZ se perdieron cuatro implantes durante lo diez años de seguimiento (índice de supervivencia: 93%). En el grupo Brånemark se perdieron nueve implantes (índice de supervivencia: 86%). Todos los pacientes fueron reoperados con éxito. Se necesitaron múltiples revisiones protésicas en ambos grupos, especialmente el sistema de atache de precisión en la sobredentadura (23% del número total de revisiones) y la base y los dientes de la sobredentadura (26% del número total de revisiones) sufrieron frecuentes fracturas. De este estudio se puede concluir que tanto el sistema de implantes IMZ como el sistema de implantes Brånemark soportando una sobredentadura funcionan bien tras diez años de seguimiento. No hay indicaciones de empeoramiento del estado clínico o radiográfico tras diez años.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>aftercare</topic><topic>clinical aspects</topic><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>overdenture</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>2004</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>15</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>421</start><end>427</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-DTQXZPNK-5</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01024.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR1024</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/0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C/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 000739 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000739 | 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:0EF2ACDEBD29FC8CB6B53DA67C50C0313488C95C
|texte= A controlled clinical trial of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years' results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |