Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol
Identifieur interne : 001332 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001331; suivant : 001333Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol
Auteurs : M Ns Jungner ; Peter Lundqvist ; Stefan LundgrenSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2005-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Biocares, Bone response, Clinical implant dentistry, Consecutive patients, Ericsson, Experimental study, Gotfredsen, Healing time, Iiit, Implant, Implant failure, Implantes, Implants research, International journal, Jungner, Karlsson, Late failures, Mandible, Maxilla, Maxillofacial, Nobel, Nobel biocare, Nobel biocares mark iiit, Nobel biocares tiunitet, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oxidized, Oxidized surface, Oxidized titanium implants, Primary stability, Protocol, Range weeks, Success rate, Surface roughness, Surgical protocol, Survival rate, Titanium, Titanium implants, Tiunitet, Traditional protocol.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Biocares, Bone response, Clinical implant dentistry, Consecutive patients, Ericsson, Experimental study, Gotfredsen, Healing time, Iiit, Implant, Implant failure, Implantes, Implants research, International journal, Jungner, Karlsson, Late failures, Mandible, Maxilla, Maxillofacial, Nobel, Nobel biocare, Nobel biocares mark iiit, Nobel biocares tiunitet, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oxidized, Oxidized surface, Oxidized titanium implants, Primary stability, Protocol, Range weeks, Success rate, Surface roughness, Surgical protocol, Survival rate, Titanium, Titanium implants, Tiunitet, Traditional protocol.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title><author><name sortKey="Jungner, M Ns" sort="Jungner, M Ns" uniqKey="Jungner M" first="M Ns" last="Jungner">M Ns Jungner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lundqvist, Peter" sort="Lundqvist, Peter" uniqKey="Lundqvist P" first="Peter" last="Lundqvist">Peter Lundqvist</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lundgren, Stefan" sort="Lundgren, Stefan" uniqKey="Lundgren S" first="Stefan" last="Lundgren">Stefan Lundgren</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592</idno><date when="2005" year="2005">2005</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001332</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001332</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title><author><name sortKey="Jungner, M Ns" sort="Jungner, M Ns" uniqKey="Jungner M" first="M Ns" last="Jungner">M Ns Jungner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lundqvist, Peter" sort="Lundqvist, Peter" uniqKey="Lundqvist P" first="Peter" last="Lundqvist">Peter Lundqvist</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lundgren, Stefan" sort="Lundgren, Stefan" uniqKey="Lundgren S" first="Stefan" last="Lundgren">Stefan Lundgren</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="308">308</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="312">312</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">5</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06">2005-06</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>Abutment</term><term>Biocares</term><term>Bone response</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Ericsson</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Gotfredsen</term><term>Healing time</term><term>Iiit</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Jungner</term><term>Karlsson</term><term>Late failures</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Nobel</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Nobel biocares mark iiit</term><term>Nobel biocares tiunitet</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oxidized</term><term>Oxidized surface</term><term>Oxidized titanium implants</term><term>Primary stability</term><term>Protocol</term><term>Range weeks</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Surface roughness</term><term>Surgical protocol</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Tiunitet</term><term>Traditional protocol</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Biocares</term><term>Bone response</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Ericsson</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Gotfredsen</term><term>Healing time</term><term>Iiit</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Jungner</term><term>Karlsson</term><term>Late failures</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Nobel</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Nobel biocares mark iiit</term><term>Nobel biocares tiunitet</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oxidized</term><term>Oxidized surface</term><term>Oxidized titanium implants</term><term>Primary stability</term><term>Protocol</term><term>Range weeks</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Surface roughness</term><term>Surgical protocol</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Tiunitet</term><term>Traditional protocol</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>biocares</json:string><json:string>oxidized</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>tiunitet</json:string><json:string>nobel biocares tiunitet</json:string><json:string>iiit</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>implantes</json:string><json:string>nobel biocares mark iiit</json:string><json:string>gotfredsen</json:string><json:string>oxidized titanium implants</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>jungner</json:string><json:string>karlsson</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>healing time</json:string><json:string>ericsson</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>success rate</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>traditional protocol</json:string><json:string>implant failure</json:string><json:string>oxidized surface</json:string><json:string>protocol</json:string><json:string>surgical protocol</json:string><json:string>bone response</json:string><json:string>late failures</json:string><json:string>primary stability</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>consecutive patients</json:string><json:string>range weeks</json:string><json:string>experimental study</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>surface roughness</json:string><json:string>nobel</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Måns Jungner</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Peter Lundqvist</name><affiliations><json:string>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Stefan Lundgren</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant survival</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oxidized surface</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>surface characterization</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>turned surface</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR1101</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-HHJRFZQ7-0</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.99</score><pdfWordCount>3702</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>23918</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>5</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>24</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>148</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title><pmid><json:string>15877751</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>16</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>308</first><last>312</last><total>5</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2005</json:string><json:string>Between January 2001 and December 2002</json:string><json:string>between January 2001 and December 2002</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Sweden Oxidized</json:string><json:string>Dentsply International, York</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Discussion</json:string><json:string>Stefan Lundgren</json:string><json:string>Peter Lundqvist</json:string><json:string>Umea Implant</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Hamburg</json:string><json:string>Denmark</json:string><json:string>Stockholm</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Roskilde</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Albreksson et al. (1981)</json:string><json:string>Sullivan et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Sul et al. (2002)</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen et al. (1995, 2000)</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. (1991)</json:string><json:string>Carlsson et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Sul 2003</json:string><json:string>Carlsson et al. (1988)</json:string><json:string>Kim et al. (2003)</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen et al. 1995, 2000</json:string><json:string>Cordioli et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Randow et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 2000b</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1997, 2000a</json:string><json:string>Ivanoff et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen & Karlsson 2001</json:string><json:string>Sul (2003)</json:string><json:string>Ivanoff et al. 2001, 2003</json:string><json:string>Sul et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Jungner et al</json:string><json:string>Schnitman et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Kim et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. (1998)</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-HHJRFZQ7-0</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>2005</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2005</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x</json:string></doi><id>276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06"></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">Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title><title level="a" type="short">Oxidized titanium implants compared with turned titanium implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Måns</forename><surname>Jungner</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Peter</forename><surname>Lundqvist</surname></persName><affiliation>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Stefan</forename><surname>Lundgren</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HHJRFZQ7-0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR1101</idno><idno type="supplier">1101</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR1101.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.2005.16.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="308">308</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="312">312</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">5</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Objectives: </hi> The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material and methods: </hi> A total of 136 patients were treated with Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Implants between January 2001 and December 2002. Totally 394 implants were placed, of which 199 were oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) and 195 with turned titanium surface (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>). Sixty‐three patients underwent a one‐stage surgical protocol, of which 24 were objected to early functional loading. The remaining 73 patients were treated with a traditional two‐stage surgical protocol. All patients were followed for a minimum of 5 months after loading of the implants. Implants were classified as survivals when clinically stable and fulfilling purported function without any discomfort to the patient, with no signs of infection or ongoing pathologic process.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> Seven implants were lost in five patients (two males and three females), six in the maxilla and one in the mandible. All failed implants were Mark III implants, inserted following the traditional two‐stage protocol. The implant success rate was 98.2% for the whole‐patient group, divided as a 100% success rate following the implants with oxidized surface (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) compared with a success rate of 96.4% with implants with turned surface (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>).</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Le but de cette étude a été de comparer deux types d'implants d'allure semblable mais avec différentes surfaces en vue de comparer les échecs éventuels. Un total de 136 patients ont été traités avec des implants Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> entre janvier 2001 et décembre 2002. En tout, 394 implants ont été insérés parmi lesquels 199 avec des implants titane oxydés (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) et 195 avec des surfaces titane usinées (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>MarkIII<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>). Soixante‐trois patients ont subi un protocole chirurgical en une étape parmi lesquels 24 ont reçu une mise en charge précoce. Les 73 patients restants ont été traités par un protocole chirurgical en deux étapes. Tous les patients ont été suivis pendant au moins cinq mois après la mise en charge des implants. Les implants ont été classifiés comme survivants lorsque la stabilité clinique et la fonction proposée étaient acquises sans aucun inconfort pour le patient ni signe d'infection ou de processus pathologique. Sept implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients (deux hommes, trois femmes), six dans les maxillaires et un dans la mandibule. Tous les implants qui ont échouéétaient des Mark III, insérés suivant le protocole en deux étapes. Le taux de succès implantaire était de 98,2% pour l'ensemble du groupe, divisé en100% pour les implants avec surfaces oxydées et 96,4% pour les usinés.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p><hi rend="bold">Ziel: </hi> Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, zwei Implantattypen von ähnlicher Form, aber mit verschiedenen Oberflächen bezüglich Misserfolgsrate zu untersuchen.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material und Methode: </hi> Man behandelte zwischen dem Januar 2001 und dem Dezember 2002 insgesamt 136 Patienten mit Implantaten von Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>. Es handelte sich um total 394 Implantate, 199 davon hatten eine oxydierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>) und 195 hatten eine gedrehte und polierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>). Bei 63 Patienten kam ein einphasiges chirurgisches Protokoll zur Anwendung, 24 von ihnen waren für eine Frühbelastung vorgesehen. Die übrigen 73 Patienten wurden gemäss dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Chirurgieprotokoll behandelt. Man betreute alle Patienten mindestens 5 Monaten über die okklusale Belastung der Implantate hinaus. Die Implantate wurden als erfolgreich gewertet, wenn sie klinisch stabil waren, wenn sie die von ihnen erwartete Funktion ohne jegliche Probleme für den Patienten erfüllten und wenn sich weder Anzeichen einer Infektion oder eines sich entwickelnden pathologischen Prozesses zeigten.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Resultate: </hi> Man verlor sieben Implantate bei 5 Patienten (2 Männer/3 Frauen), 6 im Oberkiefer und eines im Unterkiefer. Bei allen verlorengegangenen Implantaten handelte es sich um Mark III Implantate, die nach dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Protokoll implantiert worden waren. Die Implantaterfolgsrate für die ganze Probandengruppe betrug 98.2%. Sie setzte sich zusammen aus einer 100% Erfolgsrate für die Implantate mit einer oxydierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>) und einer Erfolgsrate von 96.4% für die Implantate mit einer gedrehten und polierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>).</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p><hi rend="bold">Objetivos: </hi> El propósito de este estudio fue comparar dos tipos de implantes de forma similar pero con superficies diferentes con respecto al fracaso implantario.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material y métodos: </hi> Se trató a un total de 136 pacientes con implantes Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>, entre Enero de 2001 y Diciembre de 2002. Se colocaron un total de 394 implantes, de los que 199 fueron implantes de titanio oxidados (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) y 195 con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>). Sesenta y seis pacientes se sometieron a un protocolo de cirugía de una sola fase, de los cuales 24 fueron sometidos a carga funcional temprana. Los 73 pacientes restantes se trataron con un protocolo tradicional de cirugía de dos fases. Todos los pacientes se siguieron durante un mínimo de 5 meses tras la carga de los implantes. Los implantes se clasificaron como supervivientes cuando estuvieron clínicamente estables y satisfaciendo la función pretendida sin ninguna incomodidad para el paciente, sin signos de infección o proceso patológico en curso.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Resultados: </hi> Se perdieron siete implantes en 5 pacientes (2 hombres y 3 mujeres), 6 en el maxilar y 1 en la mandíbula. Todos los implantes fracasados fueron Mark III, insertados siguiendo el protocolo de dos fases. El índice de éxito de los implantes fue de 98.2% para todo el grupo de pacientes, dividido en un índice de éxito del 100% de los implantes con superficie oxidada (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> TiUnite<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>) comparado con un índice de éxito del 96.4% de los implantes con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Mark III<hi rend="superscript">™</hi>).</p><p>
<graphic url="image_n/CLR_1101_fu1.gif" rend="inline image"></graphic>
</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">implant survival</term><term xml:id="k3">oxidized surface</term><term xml:id="k4">surface characterization</term><term xml:id="k5">turned surface</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/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/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="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2005.16.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="16">16</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2005-06">June 2005</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="7" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR1101"></id><id type="supplier" value="1101"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2005-02-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2005-02-02"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.4 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-30"></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="308">308</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="312">312</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Correspondence to:</b>
<i>Måns Jungner</i>
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Karolinska Hospital
SE‐171 76 Stockholm
Sweden
Tel.: +46 8 517 726 33
Fax: +46 8 517 734 65
e‐mail: <email normalForm="mans.jungner@ks.se">mans.jungner@ks.se</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR1101.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date</b>:
Accepted 28 April 2004</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="4"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="21"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4766"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="19"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> mark III<sup>™</sup>) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title><title type="shortAuthors">Jungner et al.</title><title type="short">Oxidized titanium implants compared with turned titanium implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Måns</givenNames><familyName>Jungner</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Peter</givenNames><familyName>Lundqvist</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Stefan</givenNames><familyName>Lundgren</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implant survival</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">oxidized surface</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">surface characterization</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">turned surface</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Objectives: </b> The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.</p><p><b>Material and methods: </b> A total of 136 patients were treated with Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Implants between January 2001 and December 2002. Totally 394 implants were placed, of which 199 were oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) and 195 with turned titanium surface (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>™</sup>). Sixty‐three patients underwent a one‐stage surgical protocol, of which 24 were objected to early functional loading. The remaining 73 patients were treated with a traditional two‐stage surgical protocol. All patients were followed for a minimum of 5 months after loading of the implants. Implants were classified as survivals when clinically stable and fulfilling purported function without any discomfort to the patient, with no signs of infection or ongoing pathologic process.</p><p><b>Results: </b> Seven implants were lost in five patients (two males and three females), six in the maxilla and one in the mandible. All failed implants were Mark III implants, inserted following the traditional two‐stage protocol. The implant success rate was 98.2% for the whole‐patient group, divided as a 100% success rate following the implants with oxidized surface (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) compared with a success rate of 96.4% with implants with turned surface (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>™</sup>).</p><!--
To cite this article:
Jungner M, Lundqvist P, Lundgren S. Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two-stage protocol.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x
--></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Le but de cette étude a été de comparer deux types d'implants d'allure semblable mais avec différentes surfaces en vue de comparer les échecs éventuels. Un total de 136 patients ont été traités avec des implants Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> entre janvier 2001 et décembre 2002. En tout, 394 implants ont été insérés parmi lesquels 199 avec des implants titane oxydés (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) et 195 avec des surfaces titane usinées (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup>MarkIII<sup>™</sup>). Soixante‐trois patients ont subi un protocole chirurgical en une étape parmi lesquels 24 ont reçu une mise en charge précoce. Les 73 patients restants ont été traités par un protocole chirurgical en deux étapes. Tous les patients ont été suivis pendant au moins cinq mois après la mise en charge des implants. Les implants ont été classifiés comme survivants lorsque la stabilité clinique et la fonction proposée étaient acquises sans aucun inconfort pour le patient ni signe d'infection ou de processus pathologique. Sept implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients (deux hommes, trois femmes), six dans les maxillaires et un dans la mandibule. Tous les implants qui ont échouéétaient des Mark III, insérés suivant le protocole en deux étapes. Le taux de succès implantaire était de 98,2% pour l'ensemble du groupe, divisé en100% pour les implants avec surfaces oxydées et 96,4% pour les usinés.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p><b>Ziel: </b> Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, zwei Implantattypen von ähnlicher Form, aber mit verschiedenen Oberflächen bezüglich Misserfolgsrate zu untersuchen.</p><p><b>Material und Methode: </b> Man behandelte zwischen dem Januar 2001 und dem Dezember 2002 insgesamt 136 Patienten mit Implantaten von Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup>. Es handelte sich um total 394 Implantate, 199 davon hatten eine oxydierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>®</sup>) und 195 hatten eine gedrehte und polierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>®</sup>). Bei 63 Patienten kam ein einphasiges chirurgisches Protokoll zur Anwendung, 24 von ihnen waren für eine Frühbelastung vorgesehen. Die übrigen 73 Patienten wurden gemäss dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Chirurgieprotokoll behandelt. Man betreute alle Patienten mindestens 5 Monaten über die okklusale Belastung der Implantate hinaus. Die Implantate wurden als erfolgreich gewertet, wenn sie klinisch stabil waren, wenn sie die von ihnen erwartete Funktion ohne jegliche Probleme für den Patienten erfüllten und wenn sich weder Anzeichen einer Infektion oder eines sich entwickelnden pathologischen Prozesses zeigten.</p><p><b>Resultate: </b> Man verlor sieben Implantate bei 5 Patienten (2 Männer/3 Frauen), 6 im Oberkiefer und eines im Unterkiefer. Bei allen verlorengegangenen Implantaten handelte es sich um Mark III Implantate, die nach dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Protokoll implantiert worden waren. Die Implantaterfolgsrate für die ganze Probandengruppe betrug 98.2%. Sie setzte sich zusammen aus einer 100% Erfolgsrate für die Implantate mit einer oxydierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>®</sup>) und einer Erfolgsrate von 96.4% für die Implantate mit einer gedrehten und polierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>®</sup>).</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p><b>Objetivos: </b> El propósito de este estudio fue comparar dos tipos de implantes de forma similar pero con superficies diferentes con respecto al fracaso implantario.</p><p><b>Material y métodos: </b> Se trató a un total de 136 pacientes con implantes Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup>, entre Enero de 2001 y Diciembre de 2002. Se colocaron un total de 394 implantes, de los que 199 fueron implantes de titanio oxidados (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) y 195 con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>™</sup>). Sesenta y seis pacientes se sometieron a un protocolo de cirugía de una sola fase, de los cuales 24 fueron sometidos a carga funcional temprana. Los 73 pacientes restantes se trataron con un protocolo tradicional de cirugía de dos fases. Todos los pacientes se siguieron durante un mínimo de 5 meses tras la carga de los implantes. Los implantes se clasificaron como supervivientes cuando estuvieron clínicamente estables y satisfaciendo la función pretendida sin ninguna incomodidad para el paciente, sin signos de infección o proceso patológico en curso.</p><p><b>Resultados: </b> Se perdieron siete implantes en 5 pacientes (2 hombres y 3 mujeres), 6 en el maxilar y 1 en la mandíbula. Todos los implantes fracasados fueron Mark III, insertados siguiendo el protocolo de dos fases. El índice de éxito de los implantes fue de 98.2% para todo el grupo de pacientes, dividido en un índice de éxito del 100% de los implantes con superficie oxidada (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> TiUnite<sup>™</sup>) comparado con un índice de éxito del 96.4% de los implantes con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare<sup>®</sup> Mark III<sup>™</sup>).</p><p> <inlineGraphic alt="inline image" location="image_n/CLR_1101_fu1.gif" href=""></inlineGraphic> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Oxidized titanium implants compared with turned titanium implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Måns</namePart><namePart type="family">Jungner</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Peter</namePart><namePart type="family">Lundqvist</namePart><affiliation>Umeå Implant Center, Umeå, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Stefan</namePart><namePart type="family">Lundgren</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Umeå University, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2005-06</dateIssued><edition>Date:Accepted 28 April 2004</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2005</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">4</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">21</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">19</extent><extent unit="words">4766</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare two implant types of similar shape but with different surfaces with respect to implant failure.</abstract><abstract>Material and methods: A total of 136 patients were treated with Nobel Biocare® Implants between January 2001 and December 2002. Totally 394 implants were placed, of which 199 were oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) and 195 with turned titanium surface (Nobel Biocare® Mark III™). Sixty‐three patients underwent a one‐stage surgical protocol, of which 24 were objected to early functional loading. The remaining 73 patients were treated with a traditional two‐stage surgical protocol. All patients were followed for a minimum of 5 months after loading of the implants. Implants were classified as survivals when clinically stable and fulfilling purported function without any discomfort to the patient, with no signs of infection or ongoing pathologic process.</abstract><abstract>Results: Seven implants were lost in five patients (two males and three females), six in the maxilla and one in the mandible. All failed implants were Mark III implants, inserted following the traditional two‐stage protocol. The implant success rate was 98.2% for the whole‐patient group, divided as a 100% success rate following the implants with oxidized surface (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with a success rate of 96.4% with implants with turned surface (Nobel Biocare® Mark III™).</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Le but de cette étude a été de comparer deux types d'implants d'allure semblable mais avec différentes surfaces en vue de comparer les échecs éventuels. Un total de 136 patients ont été traités avec des implants Nobel Biocare® entre janvier 2001 et décembre 2002. En tout, 394 implants ont été insérés parmi lesquels 199 avec des implants titane oxydés (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) et 195 avec des surfaces titane usinées (Nobel Biocare®MarkIII™). Soixante‐trois patients ont subi un protocole chirurgical en une étape parmi lesquels 24 ont reçu une mise en charge précoce. Les 73 patients restants ont été traités par un protocole chirurgical en deux étapes. Tous les patients ont été suivis pendant au moins cinq mois après la mise en charge des implants. Les implants ont été classifiés comme survivants lorsque la stabilité clinique et la fonction proposée étaient acquises sans aucun inconfort pour le patient ni signe d'infection ou de processus pathologique. Sept implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients (deux hommes, trois femmes), six dans les maxillaires et un dans la mandibule. Tous les implants qui ont échouéétaient des Mark III, insérés suivant le protocole en deux étapes. Le taux de succès implantaire était de 98,2% pour l'ensemble du groupe, divisé en100% pour les implants avec surfaces oxydées et 96,4% pour les usinés.</abstract><abstract>Ziel: Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, zwei Implantattypen von ähnlicher Form, aber mit verschiedenen Oberflächen bezüglich Misserfolgsrate zu untersuchen.</abstract><abstract>Material und Methode: Man behandelte zwischen dem Januar 2001 und dem Dezember 2002 insgesamt 136 Patienten mit Implantaten von Nobel Biocare®. Es handelte sich um total 394 Implantate, 199 davon hatten eine oxydierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite®) und 195 hatten eine gedrehte und polierte Titanoberfläche (Nobel Biocare® Mark III®). Bei 63 Patienten kam ein einphasiges chirurgisches Protokoll zur Anwendung, 24 von ihnen waren für eine Frühbelastung vorgesehen. Die übrigen 73 Patienten wurden gemäss dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Chirurgieprotokoll behandelt. Man betreute alle Patienten mindestens 5 Monaten über die okklusale Belastung der Implantate hinaus. Die Implantate wurden als erfolgreich gewertet, wenn sie klinisch stabil waren, wenn sie die von ihnen erwartete Funktion ohne jegliche Probleme für den Patienten erfüllten und wenn sich weder Anzeichen einer Infektion oder eines sich entwickelnden pathologischen Prozesses zeigten.</abstract><abstract>Resultate: Man verlor sieben Implantate bei 5 Patienten (2 Männer/3 Frauen), 6 im Oberkiefer und eines im Unterkiefer. Bei allen verlorengegangenen Implantaten handelte es sich um Mark III Implantate, die nach dem traditionellen zweiphasigen Protokoll implantiert worden waren. Die Implantaterfolgsrate für die ganze Probandengruppe betrug 98.2%. Sie setzte sich zusammen aus einer 100% Erfolgsrate für die Implantate mit einer oxydierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite®) und einer Erfolgsrate von 96.4% für die Implantate mit einer gedrehten und polierten Oberfläche (Nobel Biocare® Mark III®).</abstract><abstract>Objetivos: El propósito de este estudio fue comparar dos tipos de implantes de forma similar pero con superficies diferentes con respecto al fracaso implantario.</abstract><abstract>Material y métodos: Se trató a un total de 136 pacientes con implantes Nobel Biocare®, entre Enero de 2001 y Diciembre de 2002. Se colocaron un total de 394 implantes, de los que 199 fueron implantes de titanio oxidados (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) y 195 con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare® Mark III™). Sesenta y seis pacientes se sometieron a un protocolo de cirugía de una sola fase, de los cuales 24 fueron sometidos a carga funcional temprana. Los 73 pacientes restantes se trataron con un protocolo tradicional de cirugía de dos fases. Todos los pacientes se siguieron durante un mínimo de 5 meses tras la carga de los implantes. Los implantes se clasificaron como supervivientes cuando estuvieron clínicamente estables y satisfaciendo la función pretendida sin ninguna incomodidad para el paciente, sin signos de infección o proceso patológico en curso.</abstract><abstract>Resultados: Se perdieron siete implantes en 5 pacientes (2 hombres y 3 mujeres), 6 en el maxilar y 1 en la mandíbula. Todos los implantes fracasados fueron Mark III, insertados siguiendo el protocolo de dos fases. El índice de éxito de los implantes fue de 98.2% para todo el grupo de pacientes, dividido en un índice de éxito del 100% de los implantes con superficie oxidada (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) comparado con un índice de éxito del 96.4% de los implantes con superficie pulida (Nobel Biocare® Mark III™).</abstract><abstract></abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>implant survival</topic><topic>oxidized surface</topic><topic>surface characterization</topic><topic>turned surface</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>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>16</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>308</start><end>312</end><total>5</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HHJRFZQ7-0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01101.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR1101</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/276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592/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 001332 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001332 | 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:276F7B9924D08386BCF49F1FC43E0F3FE3BF5592
|texte= Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® TiUnite™) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare® mark III™) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two‐stage protocol
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |