Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure
Identifieur interne : 001C85 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001C84; suivant : 001C86Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure
Auteurs : Kees Heydenrijk ; Gerry M. Raghoebar ; Henny J. A. Meijer ; Willy A. Van Der Reijden ; Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff ; Boudewijn StegengaSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2002-08.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Baseline examination, Batenburg, Bone loss, Buser, Calculus, Clin, Clinical microbiology, Clinical parameters, Clinical periodontology, Colonisation, Colonization, Crestal, Crestal bone loss, Crestal level, Danser, Dental implants, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Ericsson, Evaluation period, Frequency distribution, Friedman test, Gingivalis, Heydenrijk, High incidence, Impl, Implant, Implant insertion, Implant sites, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, Insertion, International journal, Lindhe, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular denture, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthetics, Maxillofacial surgery, Meijer, Microbiological, Microgap, Microorganism, Mombelli, Mucosa score, Nonsubmerged, Nonsubmerged implants, Nonsubmerged procedure, Nonsubmerged titanium implants, Observation period, Oral impl, Oral implantology, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegration, Osseointegration period, Overdenture, Overdentures, Pathogen, Periodontal, Periodontal pathogens, Periodontology, Plaque, Plaque score, Pocket depth, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Present study, Quirynen, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Radiographic view, Soft tissues, Sola fase, Surgical procedure, Target microorganisms, Titanium, Titanium implants, Winkelhoff, Winkelhoff wolf.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Baseline examination, Batenburg, Bone loss, Buser, Calculus, Clin, Clinical microbiology, Clinical parameters, Clinical periodontology, Colonisation, Colonization, Crestal, Crestal bone loss, Crestal level, Danser, Dental implants, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Ericsson, Evaluation period, Frequency distribution, Friedman test, Gingivalis, Heydenrijk, High incidence, Impl, Implant, Implant insertion, Implant sites, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, Insertion, International journal, Lindhe, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular denture, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial prosthetics, Maxillofacial surgery, Meijer, Microbiological, Microgap, Microorganism, Mombelli, Mucosa score, Nonsubmerged, Nonsubmerged implants, Nonsubmerged procedure, Nonsubmerged titanium implants, Observation period, Oral impl, Oral implantology, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegration, Osseointegration period, Overdenture, Overdentures, Pathogen, Periodontal, Periodontal pathogens, Periodontology, Plaque, Plaque score, Pocket depth, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Present study, Quirynen, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic evaluation, Radiographic view, Soft tissues, Sola fase, Surgical procedure, Target microorganisms, Titanium, Titanium implants, Winkelhoff, Winkelhoff wolf.
Abstract
Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><author><name sortKey="Heydenrijk, Kees" sort="Heydenrijk, Kees" uniqKey="Heydenrijk K" first="Kees" last="Heydenrijk">Kees Heydenrijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Reijden, Willy A" sort="Van Der Reijden, Willy A" uniqKey="Van Der Reijden W" first="Willy A." last="Van Der Reijden">Willy A. Van Der Reijden</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Winkelhoff, Arie Jan" sort="Van Winkelhoff, Arie Jan" uniqKey="Van Winkelhoff A" first="Arie Jan" last="Van Winkelhoff">Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stegenga, Boudewijn" sort="Stegenga, Boudewijn" uniqKey="Stegenga B" first="Boudewijn" last="Stegenga">Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001C85</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001C85</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><author><name sortKey="Heydenrijk, Kees" sort="Heydenrijk, Kees" uniqKey="Heydenrijk K" first="Kees" last="Heydenrijk">Kees Heydenrijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Reijden, Willy A" sort="Van Der Reijden, Willy A" uniqKey="Van Der Reijden W" first="Willy A." last="Van Der Reijden">Willy A. Van Der Reijden</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Winkelhoff, Arie Jan" sort="Van Winkelhoff, Arie Jan" uniqKey="Van Winkelhoff A" first="Arie Jan" last="Van Winkelhoff">Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stegenga, Boudewijn" sort="Stegenga, Boudewijn" uniqKey="Stegenga B" first="Boudewijn" last="Stegenga">Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry 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">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="371">371</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="380">380</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">10</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science, Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-08">2002-08</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>Abutment</term><term>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Baseline examination</term><term>Batenburg</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Buser</term><term>Calculus</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical microbiology</term><term>Clinical parameters</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Colonisation</term><term>Colonization</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone loss</term><term>Crestal level</term><term>Danser</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Ericsson</term><term>Evaluation period</term><term>Frequency distribution</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>Heydenrijk</term><term>High incidence</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Insertion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lindhe</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular denture</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthetics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Meijer</term><term>Microbiological</term><term>Microgap</term><term>Microorganism</term><term>Mombelli</term><term>Mucosa score</term><term>Nonsubmerged</term><term>Nonsubmerged implants</term><term>Nonsubmerged procedure</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium implants</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegration</term><term>Osseointegration period</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Pathogen</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal pathogens</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque score</term><term>Pocket depth</term><term>Porphyromonas gingivalis</term><term>Present study</term><term>Quirynen</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Radiographic view</term><term>Soft tissues</term><term>Sola fase</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Target microorganisms</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Winkelhoff</term><term>Winkelhoff wolf</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Baseline examination</term><term>Batenburg</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Buser</term><term>Calculus</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical microbiology</term><term>Clinical parameters</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Colonisation</term><term>Colonization</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone loss</term><term>Crestal level</term><term>Danser</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Ericsson</term><term>Evaluation period</term><term>Frequency distribution</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>Heydenrijk</term><term>High incidence</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Insertion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lindhe</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular denture</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial prosthetics</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Meijer</term><term>Microbiological</term><term>Microgap</term><term>Microorganism</term><term>Mombelli</term><term>Mucosa score</term><term>Nonsubmerged</term><term>Nonsubmerged implants</term><term>Nonsubmerged procedure</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium implants</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegration</term><term>Osseointegration period</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Pathogen</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal pathogens</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque score</term><term>Pocket depth</term><term>Porphyromonas gingivalis</term><term>Present study</term><term>Quirynen</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Radiographic view</term><term>Soft tissues</term><term>Sola fase</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Target microorganisms</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Winkelhoff</term><term>Winkelhoff wolf</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>crestal</json:string><json:string>heydenrijk</json:string><json:string>mombelli</json:string><json:string>winkelhoff</json:string><json:string>periodontal</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>periodontology</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>batenburg</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>pathogen</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>microbiological</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>quirynen</json:string><json:string>clinical parameters</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>radiograph</json:string><json:string>meijer</json:string><json:string>gingivalis</json:string><json:string>buser</json:string><json:string>ericsson</json:string><json:string>danser</json:string><json:string>lindhe</json:string><json:string>colonisation</json:string><json:string>microgap</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>target microorganisms</json:string><json:string>clinical periodontology</json:string><json:string>calculus</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>osseointegration</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>colonization</json:string><json:string>insertion</json:string><json:string>plaque score</json:string><json:string>crestal level</json:string><json:string>pocket depth</json:string><json:string>implant insertion</json:string><json:string>mucosa score</json:string><json:string>microorganism</json:string><json:string>plaque</json:string><json:string>baseline examination</json:string><json:string>friedman test</json:string><json:string>radiographic view</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged implants</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>periodontal pathogens</json:string><json:string>radiographic evaluation</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged procedure</json:string><json:string>evaluation period</json:string><json:string>actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</json:string><json:string>frequency distribution</json:string><json:string>porphyromonas gingivalis</json:string><json:string>observation period</json:string><json:string>crestal bone loss</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>winkelhoff wolf</json:string><json:string>high incidence</json:string><json:string>sola fase</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>osseointegration period</json:string><json:string>mandibular denture</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial prosthetics</json:string><json:string>soft tissues</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged titanium implants</json:string><json:string>clinical microbiology</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Kees Heydenrijk</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gerry M. Raghoebar</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Henny J. A. Meijer</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Willy A. Van Der Reijden</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Boudewijn Stegenga</name><affiliations><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>microgap</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>microorganisms</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>one‐stage</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>758</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-PVVQXD8X-H</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>10</score><pdfWordCount>7788</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>50521</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>317</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>2111</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><pmid><json:string>12175374</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>13</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>371</first><last>380</last><total>10</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>10s</json:string><json:string>2002</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University Hospital Groningen</json:string><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk University Hospital Groningen Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, the Netherlands</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Tel</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>B. Twostage</json:string><json:string>Prosthetics</json:string><json:string>La Balme</json:string><json:string>Jan van Winkelhoff</json:string><json:string>The</json:string><json:string>Kees Heydenrijk</json:string><json:string>J. A. Meijer</json:string><json:string>Willy A. van der Reijden</json:string><json:string>Gerry M. Raghoebar</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>Palm Beach</json:string><json:string>France</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Fiorellini et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Löe & Silness 1963</json:string><json:string>Apse et al. 1989</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. (1988)</json:string><json:string>Heydenrijk et al</json:string><json:string>Koka et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Collaert & De Bruin 1998</json:string><json:string>van Winkelhoff et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Leonhardt et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Salcetti et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Persson et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Becker et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Bernard et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Lindhe et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Pontoriero et al. (1994)</json:string><json:string>Braham & Moncla 1992</json:string><json:string>Haas et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Wismeijer et al. (1999)</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>van Winkelhoff et al. 1985</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Slots 1982</json:string><json:string>Danser et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Rosenberg et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Abrahamsson et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Sanz et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Keller et al. (1998)</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Danser et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Quirynen et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>van Steenbergen et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Heydenrijk et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Sutter et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Augthun & Conrads 1997</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1994, 1996, 1997</json:string><json:string>Ellen 1998</json:string><json:string>Meijer et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Danser et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Wismeijer et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1998b</json:string><json:string>Augthun et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Van Winkelhoff & Wolf 2000</json:string><json:string>Papaioannou et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Kronström et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Hermann et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Lekholm et al. 1986b</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Mombelli & Mericske-Stern 1990</json:string><json:string>Røynesdal et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Abrahamsson et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Lee et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Lindquist et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Batenburg et al. 1998a</json:string><json:string>Brägger et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Åstrand et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Weber et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Pontoriero et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Rams et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1987, 1988</json:string><json:string>Pham et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Spiekermann et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Teerlinck et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Van Winkelhoff et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Sbordone et al. 1999</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-PVVQXD8X-H</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>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x</json:string></doi><id>3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Science, Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-08"></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">Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><title level="a" type="sub">A prospective comparative study</title><title level="a" type="short">Two‐stage implants in a single‐stage procedure</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Kees</forename><surname>Heydenrijk</surname></persName><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Henny J. A.</forename><surname>Meijer</surname></persName><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Willy A.</forename><surname>Van Der Reijden</surname></persName><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Arie Jan</forename><surname>Van Winkelhoff</surname></persName><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Boudewijn</forename><surname>Stegenga</surname></persName><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.<address><country key="NL"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-PVVQXD8X-H</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x</idno><idno type="supplier">758</idno><idno type="unit">CLR130405</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR130405.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.2002.13.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="371">371</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="380">380</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">10</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Science, Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-08"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract:</hi> The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. <hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi> was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). <hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi> was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="pt" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Le but de cette étude a été d'évaluer la possibilité d'utiliser le système implantaire en deux étapes lors d'un processus en une étape, d'étudier l'impact du mini‐sillon au niveau crestal et d'évaluer la microflore paroïmplantaire. Quarante patients édentés (classe V et VI de Cawoode et Howell) ont participéà cette étude. Après randomisation, vingt patients ont reçu deux implants IMZ insérés en une étape et vingt autres ont reçu deux implants ITI. Après trois mois, des prothèses amovibles s'insérant par une barre ou une attache ont été fabriquées. Une évaluation standard clinique et radiographique a été effectuée juste après l'insertion de la prothèse, et six et douze mois plus tard. Douze mois après la mise en charge, des échantillons paroïmplantaires ont été prélevés à l'aide de pointes en papier stériles et analysés pour détecter la présence de pathogènes parodontaux putatifs en utilisant des techniques de cultures. Un implant IMZ a été perdu à la suited'une ostéoïntégration insuffisante. En ce qui concerne les paramètres cliniques à douze mois, des différences significatives pour les scores de plaque dentaire et de profondeur au sondage ont été trouvées entre les deux groupes (IMZ : moyenne 3,3 mm, ITI : moyenne 2,9 mm). La perte osseuse moyenne durant la première année de mise en fonction était de 0,6 mm pour les deux groupes. Le <hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi> a été détecté plus souvent dans le groupe ITI (douze implants) que dans le groupe IMZ (trois implants). Le <hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi> a été trouvé chez trois patients. Chez un de ces individus, un implant a subi une perte osseuse de 1,6 mm entre T0 et T12. Quelques associations ont été trouvées entre les paramètres cliniques et les micro‐organismes recherchés dans le groupe ITI. Ces associations n'étaient pas présentes dans le groupe IMZ. Ces résultats à court terme indiquent que les implants en deux étapes insérés en une étape peuvent être aussi sûrs que les implants placés en une étape. Les mini‐sillons au niveau crestal autour des implants IMZ non‐enfouis ne semblent pas avoir d'influence néfaste sur la colonisation microbienne paroïmplantaire ni sur la perte osseuse crestale durant la première année de mise en fonction. Le sillon paroïmplantaire contient et peut contenir des pathogènes parodontaux potentiels sans signe de paroïmplantite durant une année.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Verwendbarkeit eines zweiphasigen Implantatsystems zur transmukosalen Plazierung zu untersuchen. Der Einfluss der Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkamms sollte ergründet werden und die Mikroflora in der peri‐implantären Region wurde untersucht.</p><p>An der Studie nahmen 40 zahniose Patienten (Cawood & Howell Klasse V‐VI) teil. Nach zufälliger Aufteilung erhielten 20 Patienten 2 IMZ Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetz wurden, und 20 Patienten wurden mit 2 ITI Implantaten versorgt. Nach drei Monaten wurden Hybridprothesen angefertigt, welche mit einer Steg/Reiter‐Verankerung befestigt wurden. Eine standardisierte klinische und radiologische Untersuchung wurde unmittelbar nach Eingliederung der Prohtesen und in der Folge nach 6 und 12 Monaten durchgeführt. Zwölf Monate nach der initialen Belastung wurden mit sterilen Papierspitzen peri‐implantäre Proben entnommen und mittels Kulturtechniken auf das Vorhandensein von potentiell parodontalpathogenen Keimen untersucht. Ein IMZ Implantat ging wegen ungenügender Osseointegration verloren. In Bezug auf die klinischen Parameter zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung nach 12 Monaten konnten für die Plaquewerte und die Sondiertiefen (IMZ: Mittelwert 3.3mm; ITI: Mittelwert 2.9mm) signifikante Unterschieden zwischen den beiden Gruppen gefunden werden. Der mittiere Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr in Funktion betrug für beide Gruppen 0.6mm. <hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi> wurde mehr in der ITI Gruppe (12 Implantate) als in der IMZ Gruppe (3 Implantate) gefunden. <hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi> wurde bei 3 Patienten entdeckt. Bei einem dieser drei Patienten zeigte ein Implantat einen Knochenverlust von 1.6mm zwischen T0 und T12. Bei der ITI Gruppe konnten zwischen den klinischen Parametern und den Zielorganismen gewisse Zusammenhänge gefunden werden. Diese Zusammenhänge waren in der IMZ Gruppe nicht vorhanden.Die Kurzzeitresultate zeigen, dass zweiphasige Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetzt werden, genau so zuverlässig wie einphasige Implantate sein können. Die Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkammes bei transmukosal eingesetzten IMZ Implantaten scheint keinen nachteiligen Einfluss auf die peri‐implantäre mikrobielle Besiedelung und auf den Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr der Belastung zu haben. Der peri‐implantäre Sulcus kann potentielle Parodontalpathogene enthalten ohne dass während der Beobachtungszeit von einem Jahr Zeichen einer Peri‐Implantitis auftreten.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>La intención de este estudio fue evaluar si era factible usar un sistema de implantes de dos fases un procedimiento de una sola fase y estudiar el impacto del microhueco en el nivel crestal monitorizar la microflora en el área periimplantaria.</p><p>En este estudio participaron cuarenta pacientes edéntulos (Cawood & Howell clase V–VI). Tras distribuirlos aleatoriamente, 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes IMZ insertados mediante un procedimiento de una sola fase y 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes ITI. Tras 3 meses, se fabricaron sobredentaduras soportadas por barras y ataches de clip.</p><p>Se realizó una evaluación clinica y radiográfica estandarizada inmediatamente tras la inserción de la dentadura y a los 6 y 12 meses posteriores.Tras 12 meses de carga, se tomaron muesiras periimplantarias con puntas de papel estériles y se analizó la presencia de patogenos periodontales putativos usando técnicas de cultivo. Se perdió un implante IMZ debido a insuficiente osteointegración. Respecto a los parámetros clinicos en la evaluación de los 12 meses, se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en los índices de placa y la profundidad de sondaje (IMZ: media 3.3 mm; ITI: media 2.9mm). La perdida de hueso media en el primer año de función fue de 0.6 mm para ambos grupos. Se detectó<hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi> mas frecuentemente en el grupo ITI (12 implantes) que en el grupo IMZ (3 implantes). Se encontró<hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi> en 3 pacientes. En una de estos pacientes un implante mostró una perdida de soporte de 1.6 mm entre T0 y T12.Se encontraron algunas relaciones entre los parámetros clinicos y los microorganismos diana en el grupo ITI. Estas relaciones no se encontraron en el grupo IMZ.</p><p>Los resultados a corto plazo indican que los irnplantes de dos fases insertados con un procedimiento de una sola fase puede ser tan predecible como los implantes de una sola fase. El microhueco en el nivel crestal en los implantes IMZ no sumergidos parece no tener una influencia adversa en la colonización microbiológica periimplantaria y en la perdida de hueso crestal en el primer año de función. El surco periimplantario puede recibir y recibe potenciales patógenos periodontales sin signos de periimplantitis durante el periodo de evaluación de un año.</p><p>
<graphic url="image_n/CLR_130405_f7.gif" rend="inline image"></graphic>
</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental</term><term xml:id="k2">implants</term><term xml:id="k3">microgap</term><term xml:id="k4">microorganisms</term><term xml:id="k5">one‐stage </term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original article</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/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/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 Science, 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="08004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2002.13.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="13">13</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2002-08">August 2002</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0037100" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x</doi><idGroup><id type="supplier" value="758"></id><id type="unit" value="CLR130405"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="10"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original article</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-08-14"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-08-14"></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="371">371</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="380">380</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>
<i>Kees Heydenrijk</i>
University Hospital Groningen
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
and Maxillofacial Prosthetics
PO Box 30001
9700 RB Groningen
the Netherlands
Tel: + 31 503616161
Fax: + 31 503612831
e‐mail: <email>k.heydenrijk@kchir.azg.nl</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR130405.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted 17 July 2001</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="74"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5076"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="65"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="16"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><title type="subtitle">A prospective comparative study</title><title type="shortAuthors">Heydenrijk et al</title><title type="short">Two‐stage implants in a single‐stage procedure</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Kees</givenNames><familyName>Heydenrijk</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Gerry M.</givenNames><familyName>Raghoebar</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Henny J. A.</givenNames><familyName>Meijer</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Willy A.</givenNames><familyName>Van Der Reijden</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Arie Jan</givenNames><familyName>Van Winkelhoff</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>Boudewijn</givenNames><familyName>Stegenga</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="NL"><unparsedAffiliation><i>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.
A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga</i>,
Department of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.
<i>Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan van
Winkelhoff</i>,
Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">microgap</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">microorganisms</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">one‐stage </keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract:</b> The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. <i>Prevotella intermedia</i> was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="pt"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Le but de cette étude a été d'évaluer la possibilité d'utiliser le système implantaire en deux étapes lors d'un processus en une étape, d'étudier l'impact du mini‐sillon au niveau crestal et d'évaluer la microflore paroïmplantaire. Quarante patients édentés (classe V et VI de Cawoode et Howell) ont participéà cette étude. Après randomisation, vingt patients ont reçu deux implants IMZ insérés en une étape et vingt autres ont reçu deux implants ITI. Après trois mois, des prothèses amovibles s'insérant par une barre ou une attache ont été fabriquées. Une évaluation standard clinique et radiographique a été effectuée juste après l'insertion de la prothèse, et six et douze mois plus tard. Douze mois après la mise en charge, des échantillons paroïmplantaires ont été prélevés à l'aide de pointes en papier stériles et analysés pour détecter la présence de pathogènes parodontaux putatifs en utilisant des techniques de cultures. Un implant IMZ a été perdu à la suited'une ostéoïntégration insuffisante. En ce qui concerne les paramètres cliniques à douze mois, des différences significatives pour les scores de plaque dentaire et de profondeur au sondage ont été trouvées entre les deux groupes (IMZ : moyenne 3,3 mm, ITI : moyenne 2,9 mm). La perte osseuse moyenne durant la première année de mise en fonction était de 0,6 mm pour les deux groupes. Le <i>Prevotella intermedia</i> a été détecté plus souvent dans le groupe ITI (douze implants) que dans le groupe IMZ (trois implants). Le <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> a été trouvé chez trois patients. Chez un de ces individus, un implant a subi une perte osseuse de 1,6 mm entre T0 et T12. Quelques associations ont été trouvées entre les paramètres cliniques et les micro‐organismes recherchés dans le groupe ITI. Ces associations n'étaient pas présentes dans le groupe IMZ. Ces résultats à court terme indiquent que les implants en deux étapes insérés en une étape peuvent être aussi sûrs que les implants placés en une étape. Les mini‐sillons au niveau crestal autour des implants IMZ non‐enfouis ne semblent pas avoir d'influence néfaste sur la colonisation microbienne paroïmplantaire ni sur la perte osseuse crestale durant la première année de mise en fonction. Le sillon paroïmplantaire contient et peut contenir des pathogènes parodontaux potentiels sans signe de paroïmplantite durant une année.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Verwendbarkeit eines zweiphasigen Implantatsystems zur transmukosalen Plazierung zu untersuchen. Der Einfluss der Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkamms sollte ergründet werden und die Mikroflora in der peri‐implantären Region wurde untersucht.</p><p>An der Studie nahmen 40 zahniose Patienten (Cawood & Howell Klasse V‐VI) teil. Nach zufälliger Aufteilung erhielten 20 Patienten 2 IMZ Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetz wurden, und 20 Patienten wurden mit 2 ITI Implantaten versorgt. Nach drei Monaten wurden Hybridprothesen angefertigt, welche mit einer Steg/Reiter‐Verankerung befestigt wurden. Eine standardisierte klinische und radiologische Untersuchung wurde unmittelbar nach Eingliederung der Prohtesen und in der Folge nach 6 und 12 Monaten durchgeführt. Zwölf Monate nach der initialen Belastung wurden mit sterilen Papierspitzen peri‐implantäre Proben entnommen und mittels Kulturtechniken auf das Vorhandensein von potentiell parodontalpathogenen Keimen untersucht. Ein IMZ Implantat ging wegen ungenügender Osseointegration verloren. In Bezug auf die klinischen Parameter zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung nach 12 Monaten konnten für die Plaquewerte und die Sondiertiefen (IMZ: Mittelwert 3.3mm; ITI: Mittelwert 2.9mm) signifikante Unterschieden zwischen den beiden Gruppen gefunden werden. Der mittiere Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr in Funktion betrug für beide Gruppen 0.6mm. <i>Prevotella intermedia</i> wurde mehr in der ITI Gruppe (12 Implantate) als in der IMZ Gruppe (3 Implantate) gefunden. <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> wurde bei 3 Patienten entdeckt. Bei einem dieser drei Patienten zeigte ein Implantat einen Knochenverlust von 1.6mm zwischen T0 und T12. Bei der ITI Gruppe konnten zwischen den klinischen Parametern und den Zielorganismen gewisse Zusammenhänge gefunden werden. Diese Zusammenhänge waren in der IMZ Gruppe nicht vorhanden.Die Kurzzeitresultate zeigen, dass zweiphasige Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetzt werden, genau so zuverlässig wie einphasige Implantate sein können. Die Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkammes bei transmukosal eingesetzten IMZ Implantaten scheint keinen nachteiligen Einfluss auf die peri‐implantäre mikrobielle Besiedelung und auf den Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr der Belastung zu haben. Der peri‐implantäre Sulcus kann potentielle Parodontalpathogene enthalten ohne dass während der Beobachtungszeit von einem Jahr Zeichen einer Peri‐Implantitis auftreten.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>La intención de este estudio fue evaluar si era factible usar un sistema de implantes de dos fases un procedimiento de una sola fase y estudiar el impacto del microhueco en el nivel crestal monitorizar la microflora en el área periimplantaria.</p><p>En este estudio participaron cuarenta pacientes edéntulos (Cawood & Howell clase V–VI). Tras distribuirlos aleatoriamente, 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes IMZ insertados mediante un procedimiento de una sola fase y 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes ITI. Tras 3 meses, se fabricaron sobredentaduras soportadas por barras y ataches de clip.</p><p>Se realizó una evaluación clinica y radiográfica estandarizada inmediatamente tras la inserción de la dentadura y a los 6 y 12 meses posteriores.Tras 12 meses de carga, se tomaron muesiras periimplantarias con puntas de papel estériles y se analizó la presencia de patogenos periodontales putativos usando técnicas de cultivo. Se perdió un implante IMZ debido a insuficiente osteointegración. Respecto a los parámetros clinicos en la evaluación de los 12 meses, se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en los índices de placa y la profundidad de sondaje (IMZ: media 3.3 mm; ITI: media 2.9mm). La perdida de hueso media en el primer año de función fue de 0.6 mm para ambos grupos. Se detectó<i>Prevotella intermedia</i> mas frecuentemente en el grupo ITI (12 implantes) que en el grupo IMZ (3 implantes). Se encontró<i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> en 3 pacientes. En una de estos pacientes un implante mostró una perdida de soporte de 1.6 mm entre T0 y T12.Se encontraron algunas relaciones entre los parámetros clinicos y los microorganismos diana en el grupo ITI. Estas relaciones no se encontraron en el grupo IMZ.</p><p>Los resultados a corto plazo indican que los irnplantes de dos fases insertados con un procedimiento de una sola fase puede ser tan predecible como los implantes de una sola fase. El microhueco en el nivel crestal en los implantes IMZ no sumergidos parece no tener una influencia adversa en la colonización microbiológica periimplantaria y en la perdida de hueso crestal en el primer año de función. El surco periimplantario puede recibir y recibe potenciales patógenos periodontales sin signos de periimplantitis durante el periodo de evaluación de un año.</p><p> <inlineGraphic alt="inline image" location="image_n/CLR_130405_f7.gif" href=""></inlineGraphic> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title><subTitle>A prospective comparative study</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Two‐stage implants in a single‐stage procedure</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kees</namePart><namePart type="family">Heydenrijk</namePart><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,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>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Henny J. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Meijer</namePart><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Willy A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Der Reijden</namePart><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Arie Jan</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Winkelhoff</namePart><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam,the Netherlands.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Boudewijn</namePart><namePart type="family">Stegenga</namePart><affiliation>Kees Heydenrijk, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Henny J.A. Meijer, Boudewijn Stegenga, Department ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Hospital Groningen.Willy A. van der Reijden, Arie Jan vanWinkelhoff, Department of Oral Biology, Section of Clinical Periodontal Microbiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry 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 Science, Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-08</dateIssued><edition>Accepted 17 July 2001</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</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">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">74</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">16</extent><extent unit="words">5076</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two‐stage implant system in a single‐stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri‐implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri‐implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short‐term results indicate that two‐stage implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure may be as predictable as one‐stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri‐implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri‐implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri‐implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.</abstract><abstract lang="pt">Le but de cette étude a été d'évaluer la possibilité d'utiliser le système implantaire en deux étapes lors d'un processus en une étape, d'étudier l'impact du mini‐sillon au niveau crestal et d'évaluer la microflore paroïmplantaire. Quarante patients édentés (classe V et VI de Cawoode et Howell) ont participéà cette étude. Après randomisation, vingt patients ont reçu deux implants IMZ insérés en une étape et vingt autres ont reçu deux implants ITI. Après trois mois, des prothèses amovibles s'insérant par une barre ou une attache ont été fabriquées. Une évaluation standard clinique et radiographique a été effectuée juste après l'insertion de la prothèse, et six et douze mois plus tard. Douze mois après la mise en charge, des échantillons paroïmplantaires ont été prélevés à l'aide de pointes en papier stériles et analysés pour détecter la présence de pathogènes parodontaux putatifs en utilisant des techniques de cultures. Un implant IMZ a été perdu à la suited'une ostéoïntégration insuffisante. En ce qui concerne les paramètres cliniques à douze mois, des différences significatives pour les scores de plaque dentaire et de profondeur au sondage ont été trouvées entre les deux groupes (IMZ : moyenne 3,3 mm, ITI : moyenne 2,9 mm). La perte osseuse moyenne durant la première année de mise en fonction était de 0,6 mm pour les deux groupes. Le Prevotella intermedia a été détecté plus souvent dans le groupe ITI (douze implants) que dans le groupe IMZ (trois implants). Le Porphyromonas gingivalis a été trouvé chez trois patients. Chez un de ces individus, un implant a subi une perte osseuse de 1,6 mm entre T0 et T12. Quelques associations ont été trouvées entre les paramètres cliniques et les micro‐organismes recherchés dans le groupe ITI. Ces associations n'étaient pas présentes dans le groupe IMZ. Ces résultats à court terme indiquent que les implants en deux étapes insérés en une étape peuvent être aussi sûrs que les implants placés en une étape. Les mini‐sillons au niveau crestal autour des implants IMZ non‐enfouis ne semblent pas avoir d'influence néfaste sur la colonisation microbienne paroïmplantaire ni sur la perte osseuse crestale durant la première année de mise en fonction. Le sillon paroïmplantaire contient et peut contenir des pathogènes parodontaux potentiels sans signe de paroïmplantite durant une année.</abstract><abstract lang="de">Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Verwendbarkeit eines zweiphasigen Implantatsystems zur transmukosalen Plazierung zu untersuchen. Der Einfluss der Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkamms sollte ergründet werden und die Mikroflora in der peri‐implantären Region wurde untersucht. An der Studie nahmen 40 zahniose Patienten (Cawood & Howell Klasse V‐VI) teil. Nach zufälliger Aufteilung erhielten 20 Patienten 2 IMZ Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetz wurden, und 20 Patienten wurden mit 2 ITI Implantaten versorgt. Nach drei Monaten wurden Hybridprothesen angefertigt, welche mit einer Steg/Reiter‐Verankerung befestigt wurden. Eine standardisierte klinische und radiologische Untersuchung wurde unmittelbar nach Eingliederung der Prohtesen und in der Folge nach 6 und 12 Monaten durchgeführt. Zwölf Monate nach der initialen Belastung wurden mit sterilen Papierspitzen peri‐implantäre Proben entnommen und mittels Kulturtechniken auf das Vorhandensein von potentiell parodontalpathogenen Keimen untersucht. Ein IMZ Implantat ging wegen ungenügender Osseointegration verloren. In Bezug auf die klinischen Parameter zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung nach 12 Monaten konnten für die Plaquewerte und die Sondiertiefen (IMZ: Mittelwert 3.3mm; ITI: Mittelwert 2.9mm) signifikante Unterschieden zwischen den beiden Gruppen gefunden werden. Der mittiere Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr in Funktion betrug für beide Gruppen 0.6mm. Prevotella intermedia wurde mehr in der ITI Gruppe (12 Implantate) als in der IMZ Gruppe (3 Implantate) gefunden. Porphyromonas gingivalis wurde bei 3 Patienten entdeckt. Bei einem dieser drei Patienten zeigte ein Implantat einen Knochenverlust von 1.6mm zwischen T0 und T12. Bei der ITI Gruppe konnten zwischen den klinischen Parametern und den Zielorganismen gewisse Zusammenhänge gefunden werden. Diese Zusammenhänge waren in der IMZ Gruppe nicht vorhanden.Die Kurzzeitresultate zeigen, dass zweiphasige Implantate, welche transmukosal eingesetzt werden, genau so zuverlässig wie einphasige Implantate sein können. Die Mikrospalte auf Höhe des Knochenkammes bei transmukosal eingesetzten IMZ Implantaten scheint keinen nachteiligen Einfluss auf die peri‐implantäre mikrobielle Besiedelung und auf den Knochenverlust im ersten Jahr der Belastung zu haben. Der peri‐implantäre Sulcus kann potentielle Parodontalpathogene enthalten ohne dass während der Beobachtungszeit von einem Jahr Zeichen einer Peri‐Implantitis auftreten.</abstract><abstract lang="es">La intención de este estudio fue evaluar si era factible usar un sistema de implantes de dos fases un procedimiento de una sola fase y estudiar el impacto del microhueco en el nivel crestal monitorizar la microflora en el área periimplantaria. En este estudio participaron cuarenta pacientes edéntulos (Cawood & Howell clase V–VI). Tras distribuirlos aleatoriamente, 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes IMZ insertados mediante un procedimiento de una sola fase y 20 pacientes recibieron 2 implantes ITI. Tras 3 meses, se fabricaron sobredentaduras soportadas por barras y ataches de clip. Se realizó una evaluación clinica y radiográfica estandarizada inmediatamente tras la inserción de la dentadura y a los 6 y 12 meses posteriores.Tras 12 meses de carga, se tomaron muesiras periimplantarias con puntas de papel estériles y se analizó la presencia de patogenos periodontales putativos usando técnicas de cultivo. Se perdió un implante IMZ debido a insuficiente osteointegración. Respecto a los parámetros clinicos en la evaluación de los 12 meses, se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en los índices de placa y la profundidad de sondaje (IMZ: media 3.3 mm; ITI: media 2.9mm). La perdida de hueso media en el primer año de función fue de 0.6 mm para ambos grupos. Se detectóPrevotella intermedia mas frecuentemente en el grupo ITI (12 implantes) que en el grupo IMZ (3 implantes). Se encontróPorphyromonas gingivalis en 3 pacientes. En una de estos pacientes un implante mostró una perdida de soporte de 1.6 mm entre T0 y T12.Se encontraron algunas relaciones entre los parámetros clinicos y los microorganismos diana en el grupo ITI. Estas relaciones no se encontraron en el grupo IMZ. Los resultados a corto plazo indican que los irnplantes de dos fases insertados con un procedimiento de una sola fase puede ser tan predecible como los implantes de una sola fase. El microhueco en el nivel crestal en los implantes IMZ no sumergidos parece no tener una influencia adversa en la colonización microbiológica periimplantaria y en la perdida de hueso crestal en el primer año de función. El surco periimplantario puede recibir y recibe potenciales patógenos periodontales sin signos de periimplantitis durante el periodo de evaluación de un año.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental</topic><topic>implants</topic><topic>microgap</topic><topic>microorganisms</topic><topic>one‐stage</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>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>13</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>371</start><end>380</end><total>10</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-PVVQXD8X-H</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130405.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">758</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>Blackwell Science, Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C/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 001C85 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001C85 | 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:3AEDA413B235309E270EDF77325D3190FB535D3C
|texte= Two‐stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single‐stage procedure
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |