Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study
Identifieur interne : 001F59 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001F58; suivant : 001F60Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study
Auteurs : Ann M. Parein ; Steven E. Eckert ; Peter C. Wollan ; Eugene E. KellerSource :
- The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry [ 0022-3913 ] ; 1997.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Brsnemark, Cantilever, Complication, Complication patients, Consecutively, Cumulative success rates, Dent, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Fracture, Implant, Implant failure, Implant fracture, Implant fractures, Insertion, Jemt, July, Lekholm, Major complications, Major nonretrievable complication, Major nonretrievable complications, Mandible, Maxillofac, Maxillofacial surgery, Mayo, Mayo clinic, Minor complications, Molar, More implants, Nonretrievable, Nonretrievable complications, Occlusal, Occlusal material, Oral implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Parein, Partial dentures, Posterior mandible, Premolar, Premolar location, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Retrievable, Retrievable complications, Retrospective, Retrospective study, Single implant crowns, Success rate, Technical complications.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Brsnemark, Cantilever, Complication, Complication patients, Consecutively, Cumulative success rates, Dent, Dentistry, Denture, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Fracture, Implant, Implant failure, Implant fracture, Implant fractures, Insertion, Jemt, July, Lekholm, Major complications, Major nonretrievable complication, Major nonretrievable complications, Mandible, Maxillofac, Maxillofacial surgery, Mayo, Mayo clinic, Minor complications, Molar, More implants, Nonretrievable, Nonretrievable complications, Occlusal, Occlusal material, Oral implants, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Parein, Partial dentures, Posterior mandible, Premolar, Premolar location, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthet, Prosthet dent, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Retrievable, Retrievable complications, Retrospective, Retrospective study, Single implant crowns, Success rate, Technical complications.
Abstract
Abstract: Statement of problem. Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers. Purpose. This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Material and methods. A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations. Results. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained. Conclusion. The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCBLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title><author><name sortKey="Parein, Ann M" sort="Parein, Ann M" uniqKey="Parein A" first="Ann M." last="Parein">Ann M. Parein</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Eckert, Steven E" sort="Eckert, Steven E" uniqKey="Eckert S" first="Steven E." last="Eckert">Steven E. Eckert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wollan, Peter C" sort="Wollan, Peter C" uniqKey="Wollan P" first="Peter C." last="Wollan">Peter C. Wollan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Keller, Eugene E" sort="Keller, Eugene E" uniqKey="Keller E" first="Eugene E." last="Keller">Eugene E. Keller</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB</idno><date when="1997" year="1997">1997</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001F59</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001F59</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title><author><name sortKey="Parein, Ann M" sort="Parein, Ann M" uniqKey="Parein A" first="Ann M." last="Parein">Ann M. Parein</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Eckert, Steven E" sort="Eckert, Steven E" uniqKey="Eckert S" first="Steven E." last="Eckert">Steven E. Eckert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Wollan, Peter C" sort="Wollan, Peter C" uniqKey="Wollan P" first="Peter C." last="Wollan">Peter C. Wollan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Keller, Eugene E" sort="Keller, Eugene E" uniqKey="Keller E" first="Eugene E." last="Keller">Eugene E. Keller</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">YMPR</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1997">1997</date><biblScope unit="volume">78</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="34">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="42">42</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Brsnemark</term><term>Cantilever</term><term>Complication</term><term>Complication patients</term><term>Consecutively</term><term>Cumulative success rates</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Fracture</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant fracture</term><term>Implant fractures</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Jemt</term><term>July</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Major complications</term><term>Major nonretrievable complication</term><term>Major nonretrievable complications</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Mayo</term><term>Mayo clinic</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Molar</term><term>More implants</term><term>Nonretrievable</term><term>Nonretrievable complications</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Occlusal material</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Parein</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Premolar</term><term>Premolar location</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Retrievable</term><term>Retrievable complications</term><term>Retrospective</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Single implant crowns</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Technical complications</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Brsnemark</term><term>Cantilever</term><term>Complication</term><term>Complication patients</term><term>Consecutively</term><term>Cumulative success rates</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Fracture</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant fracture</term><term>Implant fractures</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Jemt</term><term>July</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Major complications</term><term>Major nonretrievable complication</term><term>Major nonretrievable complications</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Mayo</term><term>Mayo clinic</term><term>Minor complications</term><term>Molar</term><term>More implants</term><term>Nonretrievable</term><term>Nonretrievable complications</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Occlusal material</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Parein</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Premolar</term><term>Premolar location</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthet</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Retrievable</term><term>Retrievable complications</term><term>Retrospective</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Single implant crowns</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Technical complications</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: Statement of problem. Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers. Purpose. This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Material and methods. A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations. Results. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained. Conclusion. The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>occlusal</json:string><json:string>nonretrievable</json:string><json:string>premolar</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>july</json:string><json:string>fracture</json:string><json:string>major complications</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>retrievable</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>cantilever</json:string><json:string>molar</json:string><json:string>brsnemark</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>consecutively</json:string><json:string>parein</json:string><json:string>nonretrievable complications</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>major nonretrievable complications</json:string><json:string>prosthet</json:string><json:string>jemt</json:string><json:string>lekholm</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>insertion</json:string><json:string>mayo</json:string><json:string>implant failure</json:string><json:string>posterior mandible</json:string><json:string>mayo clinic</json:string><json:string>implant fractures</json:string><json:string>prosthesis insertion</json:string><json:string>retrievable complications</json:string><json:string>implant fracture</json:string><json:string>cumulative success rates</json:string><json:string>retrospective study</json:string><json:string>edentulous jaws</json:string><json:string>premolar location</json:string><json:string>minor complications</json:string><json:string>retrospective</json:string><json:string>oral implants</json:string><json:string>major nonretrievable complication</json:string><json:string>complication patients</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>technical complications</json:string><json:string>success rate</json:string><json:string>more implants</json:string><json:string>occlusal material</json:string><json:string>single implant crowns</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Ann M. Parein DDSa</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Steven E. Eckert DDS, MSb</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Peter C. Wollan PhDc</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Eugene E. Keller DDS, MSDd</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><arkIstex>ark:/67375/6H6-2RT108RS-W</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: Statement of problem. Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers. Purpose. This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Material and methods. A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations. Results. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained. Conclusion. The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.026</score><pdfWordCount>4626</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30332</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>576 x 828 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>200</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1400</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title><pmid><json:string>9237144</json:string></pmid><pii><json:string>S0022-3913(97)70085-4</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><serie><title>Tissue-integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><pages><first>117</first><last>128</last></pages></serie><host><title>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate><issn><json:string>0022-3913</json:string></issn><pii><json:string>S0022-3913(05)X7042-1</json:string></pii><volume>78</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>34</first><last>42</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1997</json:string><json:string>from March 1985 through December 1995</json:string><json:string>1991</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Peter C. Wollan</json:string><json:string>The</json:string><json:string>Eugene E. Keller</json:string><json:string>AL Fig</json:string><json:string>Steven E. Eckert</json:string></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Rangert et al.</json:string><json:string>Jemt et al.</json:string><json:string>Naert et al.</json:string><json:string>Albrektsson et al.</json:string><json:string>Gunne et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/6H6-2RT108RS-W</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1997</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4</json:string></doi><id>406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>©1997 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</p></availability><date>1997</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note>aVisiting Clinician, Section of Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Specialties.</note><note>bConsultant Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation; Assistant Professor of Dentistry, Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Medical School.</note><note>cResearch Associate, Section of Biostatistics, Health Sciences Research.</note><note>dConsultant, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Professor of Dentistry, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Mayo Medical School.</note><note>Supported by a fellowship from the Belgian American Educational Foundation.</note><note>Reprint requests to: Dr. Steven E. Eckert Mayo Medical Center 200 First St., SW Rochester, MN 55905</note><note>0022-3913/97/$5.00 + 0. 10/1/82643</note><note type="content">Table I: Occlusal material in opposing jaw</note><note type="content">Table II: Kaplan-Meier cumulative success rates at 3 years of implants and prostheses</note><note type="content">Table III: Reasons for removal of the prostheses</note><note type="content">Table IV: Cumulative incidence of major retrievable complications and major nonretrievable complications in posterior partially edentulous patients</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Ann M.</forename><surname>Parein</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">DDSa</roleName><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Steven E.</forename><surname>Eckert</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSb</roleName><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Peter C.</forename><surname>Wollan</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">PhDc</roleName><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Eugene E.</forename><surname>Keller</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSDd</roleName><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4</idno><idno type="PII">S0022-3913(97)70085-4</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">YMPR</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-3913</idno><idno type="PII">S0022-3913(05)X7042-1</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1997"></date><biblScope unit="volume">78</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="34">34</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="42">42</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1997</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Statement of problem. Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers. Purpose. This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Material and methods. A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations. Results. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained. Conclusion. The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1997">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier doc found" wicri:toSee="Elsevier, no converted or simple article"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 5.0.1//EN//XML" URI="art501.dtd" name="istex:docType"><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr1" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr1"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr2" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr2"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr3" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr3"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr4" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr4"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr5" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr5"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr6" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr6"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr7a" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr7a"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr7b" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr7b"></istex:entity></istex:docType><istex:document><article docsubtype="fla" xml:lang="en"><item-info><jid>YMPR</jid><aid>82643</aid><ce:pii>S0022-3913(97)70085-4</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="other" year="1997">Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</ce:copyright></item-info><ce:floats><ce:table id="tab1" colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table I</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Occlusal material in opposing jaw</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="4"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col3" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col4" colsep="0"></colspec><thead><row rowsep="1" valign="bottom"><entry colsep="1"><ce:bold>Opposing jaw</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"><ce:bold>Occlusal material</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"><ce:bold>Number of prostheses</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>Percentage</ce:bold></entry></row></thead><tbody><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Natural dentition</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">93</entry><entry align="center">41.5%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Fixed prosthesis</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Porcelain</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">26</entry><entry align="center">11.6%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Acrylic</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">4</entry><entry align="center">1.8%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Metal</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">70</entry><entry align="center">31.2%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Removable prosthesis</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Porcelain</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0</entry><entry align="center">0%</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Acrylic</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">31</entry><entry align="center">13.8%</entry></row><row><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">Metal</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0</entry><entry align="center">0%</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table><ce:table id="tab2" colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table II</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Kaplan-Meier cumulative success rates at 3 years of implants and prostheses</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="6"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col3" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col4" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col5" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col6" colsep="0"></colspec><thead><row><entry align="center"></entry><entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center"><ce:bold>Insertion before July 1991</ce:bold></entry><entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center"><ce:bold>Insertion after July 1991</ce:bold></entry><entry colname="col6" align="center"></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry align="center"></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>n</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>3-year success rate</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>n</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>3-year success rate</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>P-value</ce:bold>*</entry></row></thead><tbody><row><entry align="center">All implants</entry><entry align="center">212</entry><entry align="center">88.4%</entry><entry align="center">180</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Implants in fixed partial dentures</entry><entry align="center">193</entry><entry align="center">90.2%</entry><entry align="center">149</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center">0.009</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Single implants</entry><entry align="center">19</entry><entry align="center">80.6%</entry><entry align="center">30</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center">0.03</entry></row><row><entry align="center">All prostheses</entry><entry align="center">116</entry><entry align="center">83.9%</entry><entry align="center">108</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Fixed partial dentures</entry><entry align="center">94</entry><entry align="center">89.0%</entry><entry align="center">74</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center">0.003</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Single implant restorations</entry><entry align="center">22</entry><entry align="center">61.7%</entry><entry align="center">34</entry><entry align="center">100.0%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row><entry namest="col1" nameend="col6" align="center">*<ce:italic>P</ce:italic>-value from the proportional hazards likelihood ratio. <ce:italic>P</ce:italic> < 0.05 is significant.</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table><ce:table id="tab3" colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table III</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Reasons for removal of the prostheses</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="3"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col3" colsep="0"></colspec><thead><row rowsep="1"><entry align="center"><ce:bold>Reason for prosthesis removal</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>Number of prostheses</ce:bold></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>Percentage</ce:bold></entry></row></thead><tbody><row><entry align="center">Failure of integration of an implant</entry><entry align="center">6</entry><entry align="center">19.3%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Implant fracture</entry><entry align="center">10</entry><entry align="center">32.2%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Psychological reason (or bad treatment planning)</entry><entry align="center">1</entry><entry align="center">3.2%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">GSF and/or ASF</entry><entry align="center">6</entry><entry align="center">12.9%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Gold screw and/or ASL(s)</entry><entry align="center">2</entry><entry align="center">6.4%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Modifications of the prosthesis</entry><entry align="center">5</entry><entry align="center">16.1%</entry></row><row><entry align="center">Overpolished bar</entry><entry align="center">1</entry><entry align="center">3.2%</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table><ce:table id="tab4" colsep="0" rowsep="0" frame="topbot"><ce:label>Table IV</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Cumulative incidence of major retrievable complications and major nonretrievable complications in posterior partially edentulous patients</ce:simple-para></ce:caption><tgroup cols="5"><colspec colname="col1" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col2" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col3" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col4" colsep="0"></colspec><colspec colname="col5" colsep="0"></colspec><thead><row rowsep="1"><entry valign="bottom" colsep="1"></entry><entry namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" valign="bottom" colsep="1"><ce:bold>Major retrievable complications</ce:bold></entry><entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" valign="bottom"><ce:bold>Major nonretrievable complications</ce:bold></entry></row><row rowsep="1" valign="bottom"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"><ce:bold>P</ce:bold>*</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center"><ce:bold>P</ce:bold>*</entry></row></thead><tbody><row rowsep="1"><entry namest="col1" nameend="col5">Whole group (n = 224)</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Prostheses inserted before versus after July 1991†</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">20.0%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.018</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">17.7%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">9.6%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">19.0%</entry><entry align="center"></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Premolar location versus molar with/without premolar location‡</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">12.5%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.002</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">4.3%</entry><entry align="center">0.007</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">29.6%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">22.4%</entry><entry align="center"></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">FPD versus single tooth reconstructions‡</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">25.4%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.34</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">17.1%</entry><entry align="center">0.06</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">27.2%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">15.2%</entry><entry align="center"></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry namest="col1" nameend="col5"><ce:italic>Single tooth reconstruction (n = 56)</ce:italic></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Premolar versus molar location‡</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.0%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"><0.001</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.0%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">49.8%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">46.9%</entry><entry align="center"></entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1">Screw- versus cement-retained‡</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">44.9%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"><0.001</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">48.1%</entry><entry align="center"><0.001</entry></row><row rowsep="1"><entry colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">23.0%</entry><entry align="center" colsep="1"></entry><entry align="center" colsep="1">0.0%</entry><entry align="center"></entry></row><row><entry namest="col1" nameend="col5">*<ce:italic>P</ce:italic>-value relates to the comparison and <ce:italic>P</ce:italic> < 0.05 is significant. †at 3 years ‡at 5 years.</entry></row></tbody></tgroup></ce:table></ce:floats><head><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>☆</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:sup>a</ce:sup>Visiting Clinician, Section of Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Specialties.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>☆☆</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:sup>b</ce:sup>Consultant Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation; Assistant Professor of Dentistry, Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Medical School.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>★</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:sup>c</ce:sup>Research Associate, Section of Biostatistics, Health Sciences Research.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>★★</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:sup>d</ce:sup>Consultant, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Professor of Dentistry, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Mayo Medical School.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>♢</ce:label><ce:note-para>Supported by a fellowship from the Belgian American Educational Foundation.</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>♢♢</ce:label><ce:note-para><ce:italic>Reprint requests to:</ce:italic> <ce:small-caps>Dr. Steven E. Eckert Mayo Medical Center 200 First St.,</ce:small-caps> SW <ce:small-caps>Rochester</ce:small-caps>, MN 55905</ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:article-footnote><ce:label>♦</ce:label><ce:note-para>0022-3913/97/$5.00 + 0. <ce:bold>10/1/82643</ce:bold></ce:note-para></ce:article-footnote><ce:title>Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</ce:title><ce:presented>Presented in part at the Third International Congress on Tissue Integration in Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstruction, Tokyo, Japan, November, 1996.</ce:presented><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>Ann M.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Parein</ce:surname><ce:degrees>DDS<ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:degrees></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>Steven E.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Eckert</ce:surname><ce:degrees>DDS, MS<ce:sup>b</ce:sup></ce:degrees></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>Peter C.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Wollan</ce:surname><ce:degrees>PhD<ce:sup>c</ce:sup></ce:degrees></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>Eugene E.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Keller</ce:surname><ce:degrees>DDS, MSD<ce:sup>d</ce:sup></ce:degrees></ce:author><ce:affiliation><ce:textfn>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation></ce:author-group><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>Statement of problem.</ce:bold> Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>Purpose.</ce:bold> This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>Material and methods.</ce:bold> A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>Results.</ce:bold> The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para><ce:bold>Conclusion.</ce:bold> The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract></head><body><ce:sections><ce:para><ce:display><ce:textbox><ce:textbox-body><ce:sections><ce:para><ce:bold><ce:italic>In this study, prostheses supported by one or more implants exclusively at premolar location had significantly fewer major complications than prostheses supported by molar or both molar and premolar implants. It is important to react to the major retrievable complications with appropriate management directed toward prevention of future major nonretrievable complications. In single-tooth rehabilitations, molar and screw-retained crowns revealed significantly more major complications than premolar and cement-retained crowns, respectively. Results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience.</ce:italic></ce:bold></ce:para></ce:sections></ce:textbox-body></ce:textbox></ce:display></ce:para><ce:para>The Brånemark oral implant technique was originally designed for the treatment of totally edentulous jaws; published data has confirmed the successful outcome of this procedure.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib1 bib2 bib3 bib4 bib5 bib6 bib7"><ce:sup>1-7</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> Because the number of completely edentulous patients is declining, there has been a shift in interest toward the treatment of partially edentulous patients.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib8 bib9"><ce:sup>8,9</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> However, differences in anatomy, biomechanics,<ce:cross-ref refid="bib10"><ce:sup>10</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> and microbiology<ce:cross-refs refid="bib11 bib12"><ce:sup>11,12</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> make the treatment of partially edentulous jaws substantially different from that of totally edentulous jaws. Therefore the favorable long-term outcome with the osseointegration technique in totally edentulous patients should not simply be extrapolated to the application of implants in partially edentulous jaws.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib13"><ce:sup>13</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> Although the rehabilitation of partially edentulous jaws with osseointegrated implants is becoming the most common application of implant techniques, there is concern about the paucity of data on long-term results of this treatment modality,<ce:cross-refs refid="bib14 bib15 bib16 bib17"><ce:sup>14-17</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> particularly for the posterior region. In addition to a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib18 bib19"><ce:sup>18,19</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs></ce:para><ce:para>The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of consecutively treated patients who were partially edentulous in the posterior mandible and were treated with Brånemark implants (Nobelpharma USA, Westmont, Ill.).</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>MATERIAL AND METHODS</ce:section-title><ce:para>This part of the study reports only the prosthetic treatment aspects, while the surgical aspects of this series will be described elsewhere.</ce:para><ce:para>A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the implant and prosthesis performance of all consecutively treated patients in the Mayo Clinic from March 1985 through December 1995. A total of 152 patients (97 women and 54 men) who were partially edentulous in the posterior mandible were included. The age of patients ranged from 14 to 90 years, with a median of 55.7 years.</ce:para><ce:para>For the purposes of this study, a partial edentulous jaw is defined as a jaw edentulous posterior to the mandibular canine tooth and/or the mental foramen. This also included 58 implants in canine or premolar side, which were inserted above the mental foramen at the height of the alveolus, but angled anteriorly ahead of the foramen at their apex, and 16 implants where inferior alveolar nerve uncovering was accomplished simultaneously to allow for increased implant length and bicortical implant stabilization. All implants were placed by consultants in the Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The Brånemark system Nobelpharma implants (Nobelpharma USA) were used for all patients included in this review. All restorations were included regardless of the prosthetic design and all were fabricated by the staff of the Section of Prosthodontics at Mayo Clinic. Mandibular discontinuity patients who required bone grafting, prostheses supported by both posterior and anterior implants, and patients who had not yet received their implant-supported prostheses were excluded from the study.</ce:para><ce:para>The chart review was performed to determine the date of implant placement, number and location of the implants, date of prosthesis insertion, months of service, type of the prostheses, occlusal material of the prostheses and the opposing jaw, Kennedy classification, number of units, use and type of cantilever, retaining mode, and connection mode.</ce:para><ce:para>Follow-up information was made current from the clinical records of 129 patients and through a questionnaire sent by mail to 23 patients who had not been seen for more than 24 months. The questionnaire was not returned by 11 of the 23 patients who were considered lost to follow-up (14 prostheses). During the course of this review period, five patients with seven prostheses died with adequate prosthesis function. Data from the deceased patients were included, but the follow-up time was stopped at the date of death. The median follow-up time for the entire population was 3.9 years and the mean follow-up time was 4.2 years.</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>Complications</ce:section-title><ce:para>An implant was considered nonintegrated when any clinical mobility was present. Implant failure was defined as any evidence of nonintegration or fracture. Other recorded complications include prosthesis removal, gold screw loosening (GSL), gold screw fracture (GSF), abutment screw loosening (ASL), abutment screw fracture (ASF), prosthesis material failure, adverse subjective responses, and prosthesis replacement. Data were compiled with dates of occurrences recorded. This allowed calculation of the time from prosthesis insertion until the development of a complication. In the event of prosthesis replacement, the time to failure of the original prosthesis was recorded and the date of subsequent prosthesis insertion was used as a starting point for ongoing data compilation. The observed complications were classified according to their severity into three groups. Minor complications were defined as material breakage or single crown loosening from cement washout. GSL, GSF, ASL, and ASF were grouped together as major retrievable complications. Major nonretrievable complications included removal of the prosthesis, removal of a nonintegrated implant, or removal of a fractured implant.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Statistical analysis</ce:section-title><ce:para>Success rates were determined with the Kaplan-Meier method.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib20"><ce:sup>20</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> The relationship of specific factors to end points of interest were investigated with the Cox proportional hazards model. Effects were declared significant if <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> < 0.05. The pooled data were initially tabulated for all prostheses, including single-tooth implant replacements and multiple-teeth implant replacements. Then those two groups were evaluated separately.</ce:para></ce:section></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>RESULTS</ce:section-title><ce:para>A total of 152 patients received 392 implants in the posterior mandible and 224 restorations, which includes 24 prostheses that had to be remade. Of these, 56 implants were single-tooth replacements and 168 were multiple implant-supported restorations. A total of 118 prostheses were freestanding and 6 prostheses were connected to natural teeth. The connection between teeth and implants was rigid (0 degrees of freedom) (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 3) or nonrigid, which allowed a vertical displacement between teeth and implants (1 degree of freedom) (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 3). All prostheses were designed with a custom-made cast framework in high and medium noble alloy. For the occlusal surface of the prostheses, 38 metal frames had acrylic resin, 41 porcelain, and 145 metal. The occlusal material of the antagonistic jaw is outlined in <ce:cross-ref refid="tab1">Table I</ce:cross-ref>.
<ce:float-anchor refid="tab1"></ce:float-anchor>There was no age or gender predisposition to time of implant failure, prosthesis failure, or major retrievable or major nonretrievable complications.</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>Implant stability</ce:section-title><ce:para>After prosthesis insertion, 19 (4.8%) of the 392 originally placed implants failed during the follow-up period. Twelve implants (nine patients) fractured (3.1%); three were supporting single teeth and nine supporting multiple implant-retained prostheses. Seven implants were removed because of loss of osseointegration (1.8%); two supporting single teeth and five supporting multiple implant prostheses. One osseointegrated implant was removed at the patient's request. The overall cumulative implant success rate was 92.1% ± 0.02% and 89.0% ± 0.03% at 3 and 5 years, respectively. No implants were lost after 5 years (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig1">Fig. 1</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig1"><ce:label>Fig. 1</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Long-term survival of implants, prostheses, and major retrievable complications (= implant and prosthesis failure combined).</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr1"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>The corresponding absolute success rate was 95.2%.</ce:para><ce:para>The cumulative implant success rate exclusively in single-tooth reconstructions was 88.5% ± 0.05% at 3 and 6 years and in fixed partial dentures 93.1% ± 0.02% and 89.3% ± 0.03% at 3 and 6 years (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig2">Fig. 2</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig2"><ce:label>Fig. 2</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Long-term survival of implants in fixed partial dentures versus single implant replacements.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr2"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>Both success rates did not deteriorate up through the tenth year of the study. Interestingly, all prostheses with an implant failure were inserted before July 1991 (<ce:cross-ref refid="tab2">Table II</ce:cross-ref>) and all prostheses with implant fractures had metal occlusal surfaces (<ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.01).
<ce:float-anchor refid="tab2"></ce:float-anchor></ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Prosthesis stability</ce:section-title><ce:para>A total of 31 (13.8%) prostheses were removed; 25 (11.2%) because of failure, 5 (2.2%) because of a major modification, and 1 (0.4%) because of bar overpolish before initial insertion. Reasons for the removal of prostheses are outlined in <ce:cross-ref refid="tab3">Table III</ce:cross-ref>.
<ce:float-anchor refid="tab3"></ce:float-anchor>Twenty-four prostheses (10.7%) were subsequently remade. Eleven prosthesis failures were single implant reconstructions, and 13 failed prostheses were supported by two implants. Only one failed prosthesis was supported by three implants (and that prosthesis had two cantilevers). After 3 and 6 years of function, the overall cumulative prosthesis survival rates were 89.5% ± 0.2% and 81.9% ± 0.03% (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig1">Fig. 1</ce:cross-ref>). No change in prosthesis success rate was seen for the remainder of the 10-year study. The absolute success rate was 88.8%.</ce:para><ce:para>The cumulative prosthesis success rate exclusively in single-tooth reconstructions was 79.7% ± 0.06% and 62.3% ± 0.13% after 3 and 6 years and in fixed partial dentures 92.4% ± 0.02% and 85.9% ± 0.03% after 3 and 6 years (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig3">Fig. 3</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig3"><ce:label>Fig. 3</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Long-term survival of fixed partial dentures versus single implant replacements.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr3"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>No change in prosthesis success rate was seen in the years afterward. All failed prostheses were inserted before July 1991 (<ce:italic>p</ce:italic> < 0.01) (<ce:cross-ref refid="tab2">Table II</ce:cross-ref>).</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Technical complications</ce:section-title><ce:para>Minor complications occurred mainly during the first year after insertion (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig4">Fig. 4</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig4"><ce:label>Fig. 4</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Minor and major retrievable complications.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr4"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>The occlusal material fractured in nine prostheses, all of which had natural opposing dentition. Almost all restoration material fractures occurred in prostheses with acrylic resin occlusal surfaces (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 8), although only 38 (16.9%) of the 224 prostheses had an acrylic resin occlusal surface.</ce:para><ce:para>Major complications, both nonretrievable (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig1">Fig. 1</ce:cross-ref>) and retrievable (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig4">Fig. 4</ce:cross-ref>), were seen at any time during the first 5 years. There were significantly more major retrievable complications and nonretrievable complications in the prostheses inserted before July 1991 than in prostheses inserted after this date (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig5">Fig. 5</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig5"><ce:label>Fig. 5</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Major retrievable and nonretrievable complications in prostheses inserted before versus after July 1991.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr5"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>Prostheses supported by a single implant or more implants exclusively at premolar location had significantly fewer major retrievable or nonretrievable complications than prostheses supported by either a single or more molar implants alone or premolar and molar implants combined (<ce:cross-ref refid="tab4">Table IV</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:float-anchor refid="tab4"></ce:float-anchor>A total of 30 prostheses had major nonretrievable complications, of which 16 also had a history of major retrievable complications; in 15 of these, the major retrievable complication preceded major nonretrievable complication, which created a highly significant predictor for the nonretrievable complications (<ce:italic>p</ce:italic> < 0.001). The likelihood of a major nonretrievable complication was 3.6 times higher when a major retrievable complication occurred (odds ratio = 3.55). The most frequent technical complications after prosthesis insertion were ASL (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 28) and GSL (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 21). Four of the 28 ASL complication patients experienced an implant fracture and 6 of the 28 ASL complication patients, a subsequent ASF. GSL occurred multiple times in seven patients, and four of the GSL complication patients experienced an implant fracture. Neither the occlusal material of the prosthesis nor the opposing occlusal surface was a predictor for major retrievable complications or nonretrievable complications.</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>Technical complications in single implant crowns</ce:section-title><ce:para>Both major retrievable and nonretrievable complications were observed significantly more often in the molar (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 25) than the premolar location (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 31). Three implants supporting single molar replacements fractured (5.3%) (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig6">Fig. 6</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig6"><ce:label>Fig. 6</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Radiograph of single-implant-supported molar restoration. <ce:bold>A</ce:bold>, Mesiodistal dimensions of molar restoration relative to dimensions of implant. <ce:bold>B</ce:bold>, Implant fractured after 21 months of prosthetic loading.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr6"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display>Implant fractures were no more likely to occur in single implant crowns than in FPDs (at 5 years 7.1% vs. 7.2%, <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.35). The incidence of both groups of major complications was significantly higher in the initial designs of the single implant-supported restorations. The early screw-retained crowns (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 21) sustained major complications more frequently than in the more recently developed Cera One restorations (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 35) (<ce:cross-ref refid="tab4">Table IV</ce:cross-ref>), in which the abutment is screw retained and the restoration is cemented to this abutment. The most frequent complication of the single implant crowns was ASL (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 9), with an incidence of 36.3% at 10 years in the screw-retained prostheses and 2.9% in the cement-retained restorations. Minor complications were seen most commonly in the cement-retained single-tooth prostheses.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>Technical complications in multiple implant prostheses</ce:section-title><ce:para>When FPDs were analyzed as a separate group, raw data indicated that major complications tended to occur more often in prostheses that were supported by two implants than in prostheses that were supported by three implants or more; however, this observation was not statistically significant (major retrievable complications: at 5 years 28.2% vs. 10.0%, <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.07; major nonretrievable complications: at 5 years 18.7% vs. 10.0%, <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.11). The presence of cantilevers was not seen as a predictor of major complications. Eight of the nine implant fractures in FPDs occurred in prostheses supported by two implants, and all but one of the nine fractured implants were exposed to cantilever load (<ce:cross-ref refid="fig7">Fig. 7</ce:cross-ref>).
<ce:display><ce:figure id="fig7"><ce:label>Fig. 7</ce:label><ce:caption><ce:simple-para>Partially edentulous mandible (<ce:bold>A</ce:bold> and <ce:bold>B</ce:bold>) restored with two implant-supported prosthesis (<ce:bold>C</ce:bold>). Premolar pontic is cantilevered mesially from two posterior implants (<ce:bold>D</ce:bold>). Radiographic evidence of bone loss surrounding anterior implant. (<ce:bold>E</ce:bold>) indicative of implant fracture. Additional implant placement (<ce:bold>F</ce:bold>) after initial fracture results in three molar span fixed prosthesis (<ce:bold>G</ce:bold>) that also resulted in (<ce:bold>H</ce:bold>) implant fracture from excessive loading.</ce:simple-para></ce:caption> <ce:link locator="gr7a"></ce:link><ce:link locator="gr7b"></ce:link></ce:figure></ce:display></ce:para></ce:section></ce:section></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>DISCUSSION</ce:section-title><ce:para>Results of the current study showed that in 200 consecutively treated partially edentulous spaces, the overall cumulative implant survival rate was 89.0% ± 0.03% and the cumulative prostheses survival rate 81.9% ± 0.03% at 6 years; neither rate deteriorated afterward. This corresponds to an absolute implant survival rate of 95.2% and an absolute prosthesis survival rate of 88.8%. Although the absolute success rate is more attractive and optimistic, it is more appropriate to report the cumulative success rate, because it also indicates how the risk of failure has varied over time. Specifically, the Kaplan-Meier method<ce:cross-ref refid="bib20"><ce:sup>20</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> eliminates the chance that the numerous, more recently, inserted implants will dilute the numbers observed over longer time periods.</ce:para><ce:para>Provisional prostheses were rarely used in this treatment center. One could argue that the cumulative prosthesis failure rate of 18.1% suggests the need for the use of long-term provisional restorations. In 51.5% of the prosthetic remakes, the cause was implant failure. All other instances of prosthesis remake were due to specific prosthetic complaints, such as fractured restoration material, inadequate contour, or poor adaptation to the implant components manifested through repeated component failure. Refabrication due to implant failure is comparable to the need to remake fixed prostheses because of caries or periodontal breakdown, biologic failure. Conversely, remakes due to prosthetic failure are usually mechanical or cosmetic. Implant use is suggested as a way to improve the biologic success, but the frequency mechanical or cosmetic failure must be compared with this seen in natural dentition.</ce:para><ce:para>Absolute implant success rate reported from our center in the anterior mandible (interforaminal area) is 97.8% and 95.2% from the posterior area superior to neurovascular canal; the difference is approximately equal to the implant fracture rate (3.1%) in the posterior mandible reported in this study. Implant fractures were not reported in our patients in the anterior mandible, therefore it appears that the posterior fixed prostheses bridge and single-tooth restorations may be subject to biomechanical loads that result into implant fatigue fractures after successful implant osseointegration.</ce:para><ce:para>The study population consisted of the initial group of partially edentulous patients, and thus includes the learning period for this type of treatment. No developmental group of patients preceded this study. This explains also why there were significantly more major retrievable and nonretrievable complications in the prostheses inserted before than in the period after July 1991. All implant fractures occurred in prostheses that were inserted before July 1991 with all of these having metal occlusal surfaces. It must also be noted that prosthetic components in the early experience were designed for full arch restorations rather than for treatment of the partial edentulous jaw. Smile Line components became the primary prosthetic components by mid year of 1991.</ce:para><ce:para>Minor complications frequently occurred within the first year after prosthesis insertion. Loosening of a single implant crown and material breakage are indicators of other complications immediately after insertion, such as hyperocclusion, excessive function, or parafunctional activities. Of the prostheses with an acrylic occlusal surface, 21% experienced material breakage during functioning. Although acrylic resin has been advised because of its damping characteristics,<ce:cross-ref refid="bib23"><ce:sup>23</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> it has been reported that resin, porcelain, and gold occlusal surfaces create similar stress patterns.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib24"><ce:sup>24</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> Naert et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib16"><ce:sup>16</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> found no adverse effects on the bone-implant interface or implant components and no fractures after 2 years of follow-up with occlusal porcelain. Protection of the implant and prosthetic components through the use of acrylic resin occlusal surface<ce:cross-ref refid="bib25"><ce:sup>25</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> was not statistically demonstrated in this study.</ce:para><ce:para>Major complications occurred throughout the first 5 years. This failure pattern may indicate a time-dependent metal fatigue problem as hypothesized by Gunne et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib19"><ce:sup>19</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> and Jemt et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib21"><ce:sup>21</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> such that component loosenings and fractures should not be expected in an early stage of loading but rather during the years after insertion. However, once a prosthesis had been functioning for 5 years, it was statistically unlikely to present with further major complications. When a prosthesis revealed both types of major complications, the major nonretrievable complication was almost always preceded by a major retrievable complications (in 15 of the 16 cases), which could therefore be considered as an indicator of problems that could lead to major irretrievable complications. Consequently, it is important to react to the major retrievable complications with appropriate management directed toward prevention of future complications. The prudent practitioner may consider the placement of additional implants or modification of the existing prosthesis to diminish occlusal load through alteration of the occlusal table dimensions or judicious adjustment of occlusion.</ce:para><ce:section><ce:section-title>Single-tooth reconstructions</ce:section-title><ce:para>Rangert et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib22"><ce:sup>22</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> indicated that the single-molar, single-implant situation may have a high susceptibility to bending overload. Correspondingly, single-tooth molar replacement demonstrated significantly more major retrievable complications and major nonretrievable complications than premolars in this study and all three single-implant fractures were molar replacements. Several potential explanations can be hypothesized: (1) higher mastication forces, (2) larger occlusal surface with consequently greater discrepancy between dimensions of the occlusal surface of the restoration and the implant (cantilever effect), and (3) reduced surgical and prosthetic access, which potentially compromised technical precision. To avoid complications in those instances, appropriate treatment planning, leading to appropriate surgical and prosthetic procedures, is important to avoid occlusal overload. Alteration of the cantilever-effect by narrowing buccolingual width and mesiodistal length of the tooth, flattening the cuspal inclination, and centering the occlusal contact may minimize adverse occlusal loading effects. The use of additional implants and an increased implant diameter may allow increased occlusal loading without prosthesis or implant fatigue fracture. Placement of two implants to retain the single, terminal molar is suggested.</ce:para><ce:para>Screw-retained single-implant restorations presented significantly more major complications, whereas cemented single-tooth crowns had more minor complications. In agreement with previous findings,<ce:cross-refs refid="bib25 bib26"><ce:sup>25,26</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> ASL was the most frequent complication in the screw-retained single-tooth replacements (36.3%), whereas it occurred only once (2.9%) in cement-retained restorations. No major complications occurred with the Cera-One abutments, which demand cement-retained restorations. Screw-retained single-implant crowns were used routinely before 1991. Because this period of time includes the learning period for the single-implant crowns, the lower incidence of major complications in the cement-retained single-implant crowns is most likely due to the combination of improved components (Cera-One abutment)<ce:cross-ref refid="bib27"><ce:sup>27</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> and increased experience. Most single crowns were initially cemented with a temporal cement, so the minor complications in the cement retained single-implant crowns are due to cement wash-out and crown loosening.</ce:para><ce:para>More frequent mechanical complications in prostheses supported by two implants compared with those supported by three implants have been reported in the literature.<ce:cross-refs refid="bib19 bib28"><ce:sup>19,28</ce:sup></ce:cross-refs> Accordingly, this investigation found that there is a tendency for major complications to occur more in prostheses supported by only two implants than in prostheses supported by three implants or more, although this did not reach statistical significance (major retrievable complications at 5 years 28.2% vs. 10%, <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.07; major nonretrievable complications at 5 years 18.7% vs. 10%, <ce:italic>p</ce:italic> = 0.11). Rangert et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib22"><ce:sup>22</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref>concluded that prostheses supported by one or two implants and replacing missing posterior teeth are subjected to an increased risk of bending overload. In this study, eight of the nine fractures in FPDs occurred in prostheses supported by two implants and all but one of the nine fractured implants were exposed to cantilever load. However, this investigation did not show significantly more major complications in prostheses with cantilevers (or extra units) when compared with those without extra units. Three-implant support per se is not a guarantee for eliminating bending overload. In-line placement and additional load factors, including prosthesis misfit, may still cause overload. The third implant provides optimal support when placed out of line. Furthermore, Rangert et al.<ce:cross-ref refid="bib22"><ce:sup>22</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> reported that 90% of the fractures occurred in the premolar/molar region, in which the load level perse is high and the buccolingual jaw movement and cusp orientation generate laterally directed forces. This may clarify the high number (<ce:italic>n</ce:italic> = 12) of fractures in this study.</ce:para></ce:section></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>CONCLUSIONS</ce:section-title><ce:para>The osseointegration technique ad modum Brånemark, originally designed for treatment of the complete edentulous jaw, can also be applied in the partially edentulous posterior mandible, with acceptable results for a long-term follow-up time. By using the criteria described by Albrektsson et al.,<ce:cross-ref refid="bib29"><ce:sup>29</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref> the results of this review, using absolute or cumulative success rates, demonstrate proof of the restorative concept. The prosthetic results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience.</ce:para><ce:para>Prostheses supported by one or more implants exclusively at the premolar location had significantly fewer major complications than prostheses supported by molar or both molar and premolar implants. Major retrievable complications may indicate the presence of a problem that could lead to irretrievable complications in the future. Aggressive preventive management in the face of major retrievable complications is suggested. In single-tooth rehabilitations, molar replacement and screw-retained crowns presented with significantly more major complications than did premolar replacements and cement-retained crowns respective.</ce:para></ce:section><ce:section><ce:section-title>SUMMARY</ce:section-title><ce:para>A total of 224 prostheses supported by 392 implants were reviewed and placed in 152 patients from March 1985 through December 1995. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with deterioration of neither rate thereafter. The prevalence of the clinical complications was analyzed and showed an appreciable learning curve.</ce:para></ce:section></ce:sections></body><tail><ce:bibliography><ce:section-title>References</ce:section-title><ce:bibliography-sec><ce:bib-reference id="bib1"><ce:label>1</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Naert</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Quirynen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Darius</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic aspects</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>68</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1992</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>949</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>956</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib2"><ce:label>2</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Schmitt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>63</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1990</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>451</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>457</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib3"><ce:label>3</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Schmitt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part II: The prosthetic results</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>64</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1990</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>53</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>61</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib4"><ce:label>4</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Adell</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Eriksson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PI</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>5</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1990</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>347</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>359</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib5"><ce:label>5</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Adell</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Rockler</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PI</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Surg</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>10</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1981</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>387</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>416</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib6"><ce:label>6</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Albrektsson</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A multicenter report on osseointegrated oral implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>60</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1988</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>75</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>84</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib7"><ce:label>7</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>DE</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Tolman</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>WR</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Laney</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Tissue-integrated dental prostheses: the first 78 months of experience at the Mayo Clinic</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Mayo Clin Proc</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>68</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>323</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>331</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib8"><ce:label>8</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>LH</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Meskin</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>LJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brown</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Prevalence and patterns of tooth loss in U.S. employed adult and senior populations</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Educ</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>52</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1988</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>686</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>691</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib9"><ce:label>9</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>JA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Weintraub</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>BA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Burt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Oral health status in the United States: tooth loss and edentulism</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Educ</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>49</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1985</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>368</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>376</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib10"><ce:label>10</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Rangert</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>L</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jörneus</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Forces and moments on Brånemark implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>4</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1989</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>241</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>247</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib11"><ce:label>11</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Ericsson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Adell</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Slots</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The condition of the soft tissues at tooth and fixture abutments supporting fixed bridges: a microbiological and histological study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Clin Periodont</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>13</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1986</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>558</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>562</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib12"><ce:label>12</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Quirynen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>MA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Listgarten</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Distribution of bacterial morphotypes around natural teeth and titanium implants ad modum Brånemark</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>1</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1990</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>8</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>12</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib13"><ce:label>13</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up report</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>8</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>635</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>640</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib14"><ce:label>14</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Adell</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively places fixtures</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>4</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1989</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>211</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>217</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib15"><ce:label>15</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A retrospective multicenter evaluation of the survival rate of osseointegrated fixtures supporting fixed partial prostheses in the treatment of partial edentulism</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>61</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1989</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>217</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>223</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib16"><ce:label>16</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Naert</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Quirynen</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Darius</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A six-year prosthodontic study of 509 consecutively inserted implants for the treatment of partial edentulism</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Prosthet Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>67</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1992</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>236</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>245</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib17"><ce:label>17</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Nevins</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Langer</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The successful application of osseointegrated implants to the posterior jaw: a long-term retrospective study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>8</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>428</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>432</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib18"><ce:label>18</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Schmitt</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Prosthodont</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>6</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>189</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>196</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib19"><ce:label>19</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Gunne</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Linden</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prostheses after 3 years</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Prosthodont</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>7</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>143</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>148</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib20"><ce:label>20</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>EL</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Kaplan</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Meier</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>JASA</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>53</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1958</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>457</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>481</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib21"><ce:label>21</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Linden</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Failures and complications in 127 consecutively placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Brånemark implants: from prosthetic treatment to first annual check-up</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>7</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1992</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>40</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>44</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib22"><ce:label>22</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Rangert</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PH</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Krogh</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Langer</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>N</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Van Roekel</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>10</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1995</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>326</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>334</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib23"><ce:label>23</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>R</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Skalak</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Aspects of biomechanical considerations</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:edited-book><sb:book-series><sb:editors><sb:editor><ce:given-name>PI</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:editor><sb:editor><ce:given-name>GA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Zarb</ce:surname></sb:editor><sb:editor><ce:given-name>TA</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Albrektsson</ce:surname></sb:editor></sb:editors><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Tissue-integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:series></sb:book-series><sb:date>1985</sb:date><sb:publisher><sb:name>Quintessence</sb:name><sb:location>Chicago</sb:location></sb:publisher></sb:edited-book><sb:pages><sb:first-page>117</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>128</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib24"><ce:label>24</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>Y</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Ismail</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>S</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Kukunas</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Pkpho</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>W</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Ibiary</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Comparative study of various occlusal materials for implant prosthodontics (abstract)</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent Res</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>68</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1989</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>962</sb:first-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib25"><ce:label>25</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>W</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Laney</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Harris</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PJ</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Henry</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PH</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Krogh</ce:surname><ce:suffix>Jr</ce:suffix></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>G</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Polizzi</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report from a multicenter prospective study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>6</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1991</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>29</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>36</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib26"><ce:label>26</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jemt</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Pettersson</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A 3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Dent</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>21</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1993</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>203</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>208</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib27"><ce:label>27</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Andersson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Ödman</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>L</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Carlsson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>PI</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Brånemark</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>A new Brånemark single tooth abutment: handling and early clinical experiences</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>7</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1992</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>105</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>111</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib28"><ce:label>28</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>U</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Lekholm</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>D</ce:given-name><ce:surname>van Steenberghe</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>I</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Hermann</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>C</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bolender</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Folmer</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>J</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Gunne</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:et-al></sb:et-al></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws. A prospective 5-year multicenter study</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>9</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1994</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>627</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>635</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference><ce:bib-reference id="bib29"><ce:label>29</ce:label><sb:reference><sb:contribution><sb:authors><sb:author><ce:given-name>T</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Albrektsson</ce:surname></sb:author><sb:author><ce:given-name>L</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Sennerby</ce:surname></sb:author></sb:authors><sb:title><sb:maintitle>State of the art in oral implants</sb:maintitle></sb:title></sb:contribution><sb:host><sb:issue><sb:series><sb:title><sb:maintitle>J Clin Periodontol</sb:maintitle></sb:title><sb:volume-nr>18</sb:volume-nr></sb:series><sb:date>1991</sb:date></sb:issue><sb:pages><sb:first-page>474</sb:first-page><sb:last-page>481</sb:last-page></sb:pages></sb:host></sb:reference></ce:bib-reference></ce:bibliography-sec></ce:bibliography></tail></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ann M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Parein</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDSa</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Steven E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Eckert</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSb</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Peter C.</namePart><namePart type="family">Wollan</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">PhDc</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Eugene E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Keller</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSDd</namePart><affiliation>Department of Dental Specialties, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation Rochester, Minn.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1997</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1997</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">Abstract: Statement of problem. Because there is a lack of long-term data, it is unclear whether the determinants of implant and prosthesis survival include the location, angle, design, or number of implants and use of prosthesis cantilevers. Purpose. This retrospective study evaluated the long-term outcome, determinants of outcome, and the type and prevalence of prosthetic complications in a series of patients treated consecutively with Brånemark implants in the partially edentulous posterior mandible. Material and methods. A total of 392 consecutively placed Brånemark implants were inserted in 152 partially edentulous patients and restored with 56 single-tooth and 168 fixed partial dentures restorations. Results. The cumulative success rates of implants and prostheses were 89.0% ± 0.03% and 81.9% ± 0.03%, respectively, at 6 years, with no further decrease in success noted during the remainder of the 10-year study. Significantly fewer major complications were found in prostheses supported by one or more implants, located exclusively in premolar sites, versus prostheses supported by either molar implant(s) or both premolar and molar implants. In single-tooth restorations, fewer major complications were seen in the cemented restorations, compared with the screw retained. Conclusion. The results were strongly influenced by the phase of experience. (J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:34-42.)</abstract><note>aVisiting Clinician, Section of Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Specialties.</note><note>bConsultant Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation; Assistant Professor of Dentistry, Section of Prosthodontics, Mayo Medical School.</note><note>cResearch Associate, Section of Biostatistics, Health Sciences Research.</note><note>dConsultant, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Professor of Dentistry, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Mayo Medical School.</note><note>Supported by a fellowship from the Belgian American Educational Foundation.</note><note>Reprint requests to: Dr. Steven E. Eckert Mayo Medical Center 200 First St., SW Rochester, MN 55905</note><note>0022-3913/97/$5.00 + 0. 10/1/82643</note><note type="content">Table I: Occlusal material in opposing jaw</note><note type="content">Table II: Kaplan-Meier cumulative success rates at 3 years of implants and prostheses</note><note type="content">Table III: Reasons for removal of the prostheses</note><note type="content">Table IV: Cumulative incidence of major retrievable complications and major nonretrievable complications in posterior partially edentulous patients</note><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>YMPR</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><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199707</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0022-3913</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0022-3913(05)X7042-1</identifier><part><date>199707</date><detail type="volume"><number>78</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>1</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue-pages"><start>1</start><end>110</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>34</start><end>42</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/6H6-2RT108RS-W</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70085-4</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0022-3913(97)70085-4</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">©1997 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-HKKZVM7B-M">elsevier</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry., ©1997</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata></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 001F59 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001F59 | 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:406F3D5A99CE429A4C1AC473466DEE1E7703BBCB
|texte= Implant reconstruction in the posterior mandible: A long-term retrospective study
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |