A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement
Identifieur interne : 000A62 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000A61; suivant : 000A63A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement
Auteurs : Jerome A. Lindeboom ; Arjen J. Van WijkSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2010-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Acrylic replica, Apless, Apless condition, Apless group, Apless implant surgery, Apless procedure, Apless surgery, Apless surgery group, Baseline level, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical study, Consecutive patients, Consent form, Custom questionnaire, Dental anxiety, Dental anxiety inventory, Dental implants, Dentistry, Dependent variables, Descriptive statistics, Difference scores, Dutch version, Edentulous maxillas, Flapless, Flapless implant surgery, Friedman test, Immediate loading, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant placement, Implant procedure, Implant sockets, Implant techniques, International journal, John wiley sons, Lindeboom, Maxillofacial surgery, Median, Median scores, More patients, Multiple measurements, Nobel biocare, Occlusal index, Oral epidemiology, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Outcome measures, Patient comfort, Patient outcome variables, Postoperative, Postoperative quality, Postoperative week, Present study, Procedural variables, Procedure condition, Procedure duration, Procedure group, Prospective multicenter study, Radiographic guide, Short version, Soft tissue, Surgery, Surgery group, Surgical, Surgical planning, Surgical procedure, Surgical template, Total score ranges, Week postoperatively, Wijk.
- Teeft :
- Acrylic replica, Apless, Apless condition, Apless group, Apless implant surgery, Apless procedure, Apless surgery, Apless surgery group, Baseline level, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical study, Consecutive patients, Consent form, Custom questionnaire, Dental anxiety, Dental anxiety inventory, Dental implants, Dentistry, Dependent variables, Descriptive statistics, Difference scores, Dutch version, Edentulous maxillas, Flapless, Flapless implant surgery, Friedman test, Immediate loading, Implant, Implant dentistry, Implant placement, Implant procedure, Implant sockets, Implant techniques, International journal, John wiley sons, Lindeboom, Maxillofacial surgery, Median, Median scores, More patients, Multiple measurements, Nobel biocare, Occlusal index, Oral epidemiology, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Outcome measures, Patient comfort, Patient outcome variables, Postoperative, Postoperative quality, Postoperative week, Present study, Procedural variables, Procedure condition, Procedure duration, Procedure group, Prospective multicenter study, Radiographic guide, Short version, Soft tissue, Surgery, Surgery group, Surgical, Surgical planning, Surgical procedure, Surgical template, Total score ranges, Week postoperatively, Wijk.
Abstract
Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103ALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title><author><name sortKey="Lindeboom, Jerome A" sort="Lindeboom, Jerome A" uniqKey="Lindeboom J" first="Jerome A." last="Lindeboom">Jerome A. Lindeboom</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Wijk, Arjen J" sort="Van Wijk, Arjen J" uniqKey="Van Wijk A" first="Arjen J." last="Van Wijk">Arjen J. Van Wijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000A62</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000A62</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title><author><name sortKey="Lindeboom, Jerome A" sort="Lindeboom, Jerome A" uniqKey="Lindeboom J" first="Jerome A." last="Lindeboom">Jerome A. Lindeboom</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Wijk, Arjen J" sort="Van Wijk, Arjen J" uniqKey="Van Wijk A" first="Arjen J." last="Van Wijk">Arjen J. Van Wijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 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">21</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="366">366</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="370">370</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">5</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04">2010-04</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 replica</term><term>Apless</term><term>Apless condition</term><term>Apless group</term><term>Apless implant surgery</term><term>Apless procedure</term><term>Apless surgery</term><term>Apless surgery group</term><term>Baseline level</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Consent form</term><term>Custom questionnaire</term><term>Dental anxiety</term><term>Dental anxiety inventory</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Dependent variables</term><term>Descriptive statistics</term><term>Difference scores</term><term>Dutch version</term><term>Edentulous maxillas</term><term>Flapless</term><term>Flapless implant surgery</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant procedure</term><term>Implant sockets</term><term>Implant techniques</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Lindeboom</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Median</term><term>Median scores</term><term>More patients</term><term>Multiple measurements</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Occlusal index</term><term>Oral epidemiology</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Outcome measures</term><term>Patient comfort</term><term>Patient outcome variables</term><term>Postoperative</term><term>Postoperative quality</term><term>Postoperative week</term><term>Present study</term><term>Procedural variables</term><term>Procedure condition</term><term>Procedure duration</term><term>Procedure group</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Radiographic guide</term><term>Short version</term><term>Soft tissue</term><term>Surgery</term><term>Surgery group</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical planning</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical template</term><term>Total score ranges</term><term>Week postoperatively</term><term>Wijk</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Acrylic replica</term><term>Apless</term><term>Apless condition</term><term>Apless group</term><term>Apless implant surgery</term><term>Apless procedure</term><term>Apless surgery</term><term>Apless surgery group</term><term>Baseline level</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Consent form</term><term>Custom questionnaire</term><term>Dental anxiety</term><term>Dental anxiety inventory</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Dependent variables</term><term>Descriptive statistics</term><term>Difference scores</term><term>Dutch version</term><term>Edentulous maxillas</term><term>Flapless</term><term>Flapless implant surgery</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant dentistry</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant procedure</term><term>Implant sockets</term><term>Implant techniques</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Lindeboom</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Median</term><term>Median scores</term><term>More patients</term><term>Multiple measurements</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Occlusal index</term><term>Oral epidemiology</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Outcome measures</term><term>Patient comfort</term><term>Patient outcome variables</term><term>Postoperative</term><term>Postoperative quality</term><term>Postoperative week</term><term>Present study</term><term>Procedural variables</term><term>Procedure condition</term><term>Procedure duration</term><term>Procedure group</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Radiographic guide</term><term>Short version</term><term>Soft tissue</term><term>Surgery</term><term>Surgery group</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical planning</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical template</term><term>Total score ranges</term><term>Week postoperatively</term><term>Wijk</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>apless</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>postoperative</json:string><json:string>lindeboom</json:string><json:string>patient outcome variables</json:string><json:string>flapless</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>multiple measurements</json:string><json:string>wijk</json:string><json:string>surgical template</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>implant techniques</json:string><json:string>apless implant surgery</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>apless group</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons</json:string><json:string>implant procedure</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>apless surgery</json:string><json:string>outcome measures</json:string><json:string>difference scores</json:string><json:string>median</json:string><json:string>flapless implant surgery</json:string><json:string>more patients</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>postoperative week</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>apless procedure</json:string><json:string>dental anxiety inventory</json:string><json:string>dutch version</json:string><json:string>median scores</json:string><json:string>procedure duration</json:string><json:string>radiographic guide</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>occlusal index</json:string><json:string>surgery</json:string><json:string>total score ranges</json:string><json:string>surgical planning</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>short version</json:string><json:string>patient comfort</json:string><json:string>custom questionnaire</json:string><json:string>procedural variables</json:string><json:string>surgery group</json:string><json:string>apless surgery group</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>implant sockets</json:string><json:string>soft tissue</json:string><json:string>implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>week postoperatively</json:string><json:string>consent form</json:string><json:string>dental anxiety</json:string><json:string>edentulous maxillas</json:string><json:string>friedman test</json:string><json:string>descriptive statistics</json:string><json:string>dependent variables</json:string><json:string>procedure condition</json:string><json:string>baseline level</json:string><json:string>consecutive patients</json:string><json:string>apless condition</json:string><json:string>postoperative quality</json:string><json:string>clinical study</json:string><json:string>acrylic replica</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>oral epidemiology</json:string><json:string>immediate loading</json:string><json:string>prospective multicenter study</json:string><json:string>procedure group</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Jerome A. Lindeboom</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Arjen J. Van Wijk</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>anxiety</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant procedure</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>pain</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>quality of life</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR1866</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-6HRL34ZN-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.674</score><pdfWordCount>3194</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>21039</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>5</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>40</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>310</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title><pmid><json:string>20128828</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>21</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>366</first><last>370</last><total>5</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2008</json:string><json:string>2010</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University of Amsterdam</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Key</json:string><json:string>Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel</json:string><json:string>Behaviour Research and Therapy</json:string><json:string>Academic Medical Center University</json:string><json:string>The International Journal</json:string><json:string>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences</json:string><json:string>Academic Medical Center</json:string><json:string>Lindeboom Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Behavior Research and Therapy</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Arjen J</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>Van Steenberghe</json:string><json:string>Differences</json:string><json:string>Jerome A. Lindeboom</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Berkshire</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Gouda</json:string><json:string>Amsterdam</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Netherlands</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Creamer et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Casap et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Slade 1997</json:string><json:string>Becker et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Stouthard et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Olde et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>van Steenberghe et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Berdougo et al. 2009</json:string><json:string>Komiyama et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Aartman 1998</json:string><json:string>Fortin et al. 2006</json:string><json:string>Oh et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>van der Meulen et al. 2008</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-6HRL34ZN-9</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>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x</json:string></doi><id>1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2010-04"></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 comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title><title level="a" type="short">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Jerome A.</forename><surname>Lindeboom</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Arjen J.</forename><surname>Van Wijk</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6HRL34ZN-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR1866</idno><idno type="supplier">1866</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR1866.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.2010.21.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">21</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="366">366</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="370">370</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">5</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-04"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background: </hi> Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Aim: </hi> The objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Patients and methods: </hi> From January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6±2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7±7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> CT‐guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R), dental anxiety using the s‐DAI and oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐14).</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> Ninety‐six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two‐phase implants and the after‐implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s‐DAI), emotional impact (IES‐R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions: </hi> Differences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group.</p><p>
<hi rend="bold">To cite this article:</hi>
Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement.
<hi rend="italic">Clin. Oral Impl. Res</hi>. <hi rend="bold">21</hi>, 2010; 366–370.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01866.x</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">anxiety</term><term xml:id="k2">implant procedure</term><term xml:id="k3">pain</term><term xml:id="k4">quality of life</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/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/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>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</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="04004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2010.21.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="21">21</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-04">April 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="2" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR1866"></id><id type="supplier" value="1866"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-02-01"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-13"></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="366">366</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="370">370</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Correspondence to:</b>
<i>Jerome A. Lindeboom</i>
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Academic Medical Center
University of Amsterdam
Meibergdreef 9
1105 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel.: +020 566 4098
Fax: +020 566 9032
e‐mail: <email normalForm="j.a.lindeboom@amc.uva.nl">j.a.lindeboom@amc.uva.nl</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR1866.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> Accepted 26 September 2009</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="13"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4207"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="16"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title><title type="shortAuthors">Lindeboom & van Wijk</title><title type="short">A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Jerome A.</givenNames><familyName>Lindeboom</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Arjen J.</givenNames><familyName>Van Wijk</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">anxiety</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implant procedure</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">pain</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">quality of life</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Background: </b> Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.</p><p><b>Aim: </b> The objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques.</p><p><b>Patients and methods: </b> From January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6±2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7±7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide<sup>®</sup> CT‐guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R), dental anxiety using the s‐DAI and oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐14).</p><p><b>Results: </b> Ninety‐six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two‐phase implants and the after‐implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s‐DAI), emotional impact (IES‐R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement.</p><p><b>Conclusions: </b> Differences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group.</p><p> <b>To cite this article:</b>
Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement.
<i>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</i>. <b>21</b>, 2010; 366–370.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01866.x</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jerome A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lindeboom</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Arjen J.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Wijk</namePart><affiliation>Department of Social Dentistry and Behavioural Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 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>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-04</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 26 September 2009</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">1</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">13</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">16</extent><extent unit="words">4207</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Flapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.</abstract><abstract>Aim: The objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques.</abstract><abstract>Patients and methods: From January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6±2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7±7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide® CT‐guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R), dental anxiety using the s‐DAI and oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐14).</abstract><abstract>Results: Ninety‐six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two‐phase implants and the after‐implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s‐DAI), emotional impact (IES‐R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement.</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: Differences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group.</abstract><abstract>To cite this article:
Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 366–370.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01866.x</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>anxiety</topic><topic>implant procedure</topic><topic>pain</topic><topic>quality of life</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>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>21</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>366</start><end>370</end><total>5</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6HRL34ZN-9</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR1866</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A/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 000A62 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000A62 | 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:1532525CCDED0A060DED3E98DF62595EC3BC103A
|texte= A comparison of two implant techniques on patient‐based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |