Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants
Identifieur interne : 002C74 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002C73; suivant : 002C75Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants
Auteurs : Regina Merickse-Stern ; Dominik Aerni ; Alfred H. Geering ; Daniel BuserSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2001-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Angular defects, Annual radiographs, Approximal sites, Biological failures, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone loss, Bone resorption, Buser, Clin, Clinical evaluation, Clinical examination, Clinical trials, Comparative assessment, Crestal, Crestal bone level, Cylinder implants, Data collection, Defect, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Different prosthetic indications, Distal implant sites, Early table, Early types, Edentulous, Edentulous patient, Edentulous patients, Experimental studies, Forster geering, Further implants, Geering, Good prognosis, Healing phase, Hollow cylinder, Hollow cylinder implant, Hollow cylinder implants, Hollow cylinder type, Hollow cylinders, Horizontal bone loss, Horizontal component, Impl, Implant, Implant body, Implant failure, Implant failures, Implant sites, Implant types, Implantate, Implantes, Implants research, International journal, Intimate contact, Linear measurements, Longitudinal data, Mandibular, Mandibular implants, Mandibular overdentures, Marginal infection, Maxillary overdentures, Morphologic characteristics, Neck portion, Nonsubmerged titanium implants, Observation period, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oral surgery, Original bone level, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegrated titanium implants, Overdenture, Overdentures, Partial prostheses, Partial prosthesis, Periimplant, Periimplant parameters, Plaque index, Plastic reconstructive surgery, Posterior mandible, Present study, Private practices, Prospective study, Prosthesis, Prosthetic, Prosthetic reconstructions, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic documentation, Radiographic evaluation, Radiographic examination, Radiographic results, Scandinavian journal, Schematic representation, Schroeder, Schweizerische montatsschrift, Single crowns, Single tooth replacements, Success criteria, Support overdentures, Survival rate, Time period, Titanium, Tooth roots, Total implants, Various types, Vertical component.
- Teeft :
- Angular defects, Annual radiographs, Approximal sites, Biological failures, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone loss, Bone resorption, Buser, Clin, Clinical evaluation, Clinical examination, Clinical trials, Comparative assessment, Crestal, Crestal bone level, Cylinder implants, Data collection, Defect, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Different prosthetic indications, Distal implant sites, Early table, Early types, Edentulous, Edentulous patient, Edentulous patients, Experimental studies, Forster geering, Further implants, Geering, Good prognosis, Healing phase, Hollow cylinder, Hollow cylinder implant, Hollow cylinder implants, Hollow cylinder type, Hollow cylinders, Horizontal bone loss, Horizontal component, Impl, Implant, Implant body, Implant failure, Implant failures, Implant sites, Implant types, Implantate, Implantes, Implants research, International journal, Intimate contact, Linear measurements, Longitudinal data, Mandibular, Mandibular implants, Mandibular overdentures, Marginal infection, Maxillary overdentures, Morphologic characteristics, Neck portion, Nonsubmerged titanium implants, Observation period, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Oral surgery, Original bone level, Osseointegrated implants, Osseointegrated titanium implants, Overdenture, Overdentures, Partial prostheses, Partial prosthesis, Periimplant, Periimplant parameters, Plaque index, Plastic reconstructive surgery, Posterior mandible, Present study, Private practices, Prospective study, Prosthesis, Prosthetic, Prosthetic reconstructions, Radiograph, Radiographic, Radiographic documentation, Radiographic evaluation, Radiographic examination, Radiographic results, Scandinavian journal, Schematic representation, Schroeder, Schweizerische montatsschrift, Single crowns, Single tooth replacements, Success criteria, Support overdentures, Survival rate, Time period, Titanium, Tooth roots, Total implants, Various types, Vertical component.
Abstract
Abstract: From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still in situ had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still in situ after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4ECLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><author><name sortKey="Merickse Tern, Regina" sort="Merickse Tern, Regina" uniqKey="Merickse Tern R" first="Regina" last="Merickse-Stern">Regina Merickse-Stern</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aerni, Dominik" sort="Aerni, Dominik" uniqKey="Aerni D" first="Dominik" last="Aerni">Dominik Aerni</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Geering, Alfred H" sort="Geering, Alfred H" uniqKey="Geering A" first="Alfred H." last="Geering">Alfred H. Geering</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Buser, Daniel" sort="Buser, Daniel" uniqKey="Buser D" first="Daniel" last="Buser">Daniel Buser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002C74</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002C74</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><author><name sortKey="Merickse Tern, Regina" sort="Merickse Tern, Regina" uniqKey="Merickse Tern R" first="Regina" last="Merickse-Stern">Regina Merickse-Stern</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aerni, Dominik" sort="Aerni, Dominik" uniqKey="Aerni D" first="Dominik" last="Aerni">Dominik Aerni</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Geering, Alfred H" sort="Geering, Alfred H" uniqKey="Geering A" first="Alfred H." last="Geering">Alfred H. Geering</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Buser, Daniel" sort="Buser, Daniel" uniqKey="Buser D" first="Daniel" last="Buser">Daniel Buser</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="252">252</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="259">259</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-06">2001-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Angular defects</term><term>Annual radiographs</term><term>Approximal sites</term><term>Biological failures</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone resorption</term><term>Buser</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical evaluation</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Comparative assessment</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone level</term><term>Cylinder implants</term><term>Data collection</term><term>Defect</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Different prosthetic indications</term><term>Distal implant sites</term><term>Early table</term><term>Early types</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patient</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Experimental studies</term><term>Forster geering</term><term>Further implants</term><term>Geering</term><term>Good prognosis</term><term>Healing phase</term><term>Hollow cylinder</term><term>Hollow cylinder implant</term><term>Hollow cylinder implants</term><term>Hollow cylinder type</term><term>Hollow cylinders</term><term>Horizontal bone loss</term><term>Horizontal component</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant body</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant failures</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant types</term><term>Implantate</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Intimate contact</term><term>Linear measurements</term><term>Longitudinal data</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular implants</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Marginal infection</term><term>Maxillary overdentures</term><term>Morphologic characteristics</term><term>Neck portion</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium implants</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Original bone level</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegrated titanium implants</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Partial prosthesis</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant parameters</term><term>Plaque index</term><term>Plastic reconstructive surgery</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Present study</term><term>Private practices</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic reconstructions</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic documentation</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Radiographic examination</term><term>Radiographic results</term><term>Scandinavian journal</term><term>Schematic representation</term><term>Schroeder</term><term>Schweizerische montatsschrift</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single tooth replacements</term><term>Success criteria</term><term>Support overdentures</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Time period</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Tooth roots</term><term>Total implants</term><term>Various types</term><term>Vertical component</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Angular defects</term><term>Annual radiographs</term><term>Approximal sites</term><term>Biological failures</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone resorption</term><term>Buser</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical evaluation</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Comparative assessment</term><term>Crestal</term><term>Crestal bone level</term><term>Cylinder implants</term><term>Data collection</term><term>Defect</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Different prosthetic indications</term><term>Distal implant sites</term><term>Early table</term><term>Early types</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patient</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Experimental studies</term><term>Forster geering</term><term>Further implants</term><term>Geering</term><term>Good prognosis</term><term>Healing phase</term><term>Hollow cylinder</term><term>Hollow cylinder implant</term><term>Hollow cylinder implants</term><term>Hollow cylinder type</term><term>Hollow cylinders</term><term>Horizontal bone loss</term><term>Horizontal component</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant body</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant failures</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant types</term><term>Implantate</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Intimate contact</term><term>Linear measurements</term><term>Longitudinal data</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular implants</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Marginal infection</term><term>Maxillary overdentures</term><term>Morphologic characteristics</term><term>Neck portion</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium implants</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Original bone level</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Osseointegrated titanium implants</term><term>Overdenture</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Partial prosthesis</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant parameters</term><term>Plaque index</term><term>Plastic reconstructive surgery</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Present study</term><term>Private practices</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic reconstructions</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic documentation</term><term>Radiographic evaluation</term><term>Radiographic examination</term><term>Radiographic results</term><term>Scandinavian journal</term><term>Schematic representation</term><term>Schroeder</term><term>Schweizerische montatsschrift</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single tooth replacements</term><term>Success criteria</term><term>Support overdentures</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Time period</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Tooth roots</term><term>Total implants</term><term>Various types</term><term>Vertical component</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still in situ had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still in situ after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>buser</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>radiograph</json:string><json:string>implantate</json:string><json:string>periimplant</json:string><json:string>geering</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>schroeder</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>partial prostheses</json:string><json:string>observation period</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>hollow cylinder</json:string><json:string>implantes</json:string><json:string>time period</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>crestal</json:string><json:string>angular defects</json:string><json:string>overdenture</json:string><json:string>hollow cylinder implants</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>clinical evaluation</json:string><json:string>radiographic evaluation</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>implant types</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>bone resorption</json:string><json:string>single tooth replacements</json:string><json:string>crestal bone level</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>vertical component</json:string><json:string>success criteria</json:string><json:string>support overdentures</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>clinical examination</json:string><json:string>maxillary overdentures</json:string><json:string>periimplant parameters</json:string><json:string>biological failures</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>radiographic results</json:string><json:string>radiographic examination</json:string><json:string>various types</json:string><json:string>dental medicine</json:string><json:string>data collection</json:string><json:string>hollow cylinder type</json:string><json:string>early table</json:string><json:string>oral surgery</json:string><json:string>total implants</json:string><json:string>horizontal bone loss</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated titanium implants</json:string><json:string>cylinder implants</json:string><json:string>single crowns</json:string><json:string>mandibular implants</json:string><json:string>tooth roots</json:string><json:string>posterior mandible</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged titanium implants</json:string><json:string>schweizerische montatsschrift</json:string><json:string>edentulous patient</json:string><json:string>partial prosthesis</json:string><json:string>implant failure</json:string><json:string>plaque index</json:string><json:string>comparative assessment</json:string><json:string>neck portion</json:string><json:string>morphologic characteristics</json:string><json:string>intimate contact</json:string><json:string>early types</json:string><json:string>approximal sites</json:string><json:string>schematic representation</json:string><json:string>original bone level</json:string><json:string>horizontal component</json:string><json:string>bone formation</json:string><json:string>bone density</json:string><json:string>further implants</json:string><json:string>implant body</json:string><json:string>implant failures</json:string><json:string>marginal infection</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>different prosthetic indications</json:string><json:string>hollow cylinder implant</json:string><json:string>distal implant sites</json:string><json:string>longitudinal data</json:string><json:string>good prognosis</json:string><json:string>experimental studies</json:string><json:string>prosthetic reconstructions</json:string><json:string>linear measurements</json:string><json:string>annual radiographs</json:string><json:string>private practices</json:string><json:string>clinical trials</json:string><json:string>healing phase</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>radiographic documentation</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>forster geering</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>scandinavian journal</json:string><json:string>plastic reconstructive surgery</json:string><json:string>hollow cylinders</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>defect</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Regina Merickse‐Stern</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Dominik Aerni</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Alfred H. Geering</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Daniel Buser</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>non‐submerged implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>long‐term evaluation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>radiographic results</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR120310</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-SVWC62QW-M</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still in situ had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still in situ after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.976</score><pdfWordCount>5222</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>34712</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>248</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1586</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><pmid><json:string>11359483</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>252</first><last>259</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1974</json:string><json:string>1979</json:string><json:string>1975</json:string><json:string>2001</json:string><json:string>1998</json:string><json:string>1994</json:string><json:string>1999</json:string><json:string>1978</json:string><json:string>1985</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, University of Bern</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Correspondence</json:string><json:string>University of Bern</json:string><json:string>Prosthodontics University</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Regina Merickse-Stern</json:string><json:string>Daniel Buser</json:string><json:string>Alfred H. Geering</json:string><json:string>Dominik Aerni</json:string><json:string>Regina Mericske-Stern</json:string><json:string>F. Figs</json:string><json:string>Implants</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Mitte</json:string><json:string>Bern</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Versteegh et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Brånemark et al. 1969, 1977</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. (1990)</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern & Geering 1988</json:string><json:string>Bruggenkate et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Palmqvist et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al</json:string><json:string>Jemt 1993</json:string><json:string>Jemt et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Brånemark et al. 1985</json:string><json:string>Behneke et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Schroeder et al. 1976, 1978, 1981</json:string><json:string>Behneke et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Smedberg et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Forster & Geering 1984</json:string><json:string>Bragger et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern 1990</json:string><json:string>Schroeder et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Weber et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. (1987)</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Mericske-Stern et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Naert et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>MericskeStern 1988</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-SVWC62QW-M</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2001</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x</json:string></doi><id>5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><title level="a" type="sub">Clinical and radiographic results</title><title level="a" type="short">Long‐term evaluation of early ITI‐implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Regina</forename><surname>Merickse‐Stern</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Dominik</forename><surname>Aerni</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Alfred H.</forename><surname>Geering</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Daniel</forename><surname>Buser</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-SVWC62QW-M</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR120310</idno><idno type="supplier">clr10617</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR120310.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2001.12.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="252">252</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="259">259</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract:</hi> From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still <hi rend="italic">in situ</hi> had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still <hi rend="italic">in situ</hi> after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Depuis 1974 différents types d’implants ITI cylindriques creux ont été placés avant la nouvelle génération d’implants ITI Bonefit qui a été mise sur le marché au milieu des années 80. Le but de cette étude a été l’évaluation tant clinique que radiologique des implants cylindriques creux qui avaient été insérés durant la période de 1978 à 1987 chez des patients édentés partiels ou complets pour servir d’ancrage à des prothèses totales, des prothèses partielles fixées et des couronnes uniques. En tout 71 patients avec un total de 132 implants toujours en place ont été suivis régulièrement durant cette période de 11.4 à 19.7 années (moyenne 14.1). Treize implants avaient dûêtre enlevés avant qu’une période d’observation de dix années ne soit achevée, quatre implants supplémentaires ont été perdus après une période de plus de dix années d’activité et deux supplémentaires ont été considérés comme échecs lors de l’examen. Ainsi 91.4% des implants étaient toujours en place après dix ans et le taux de succès pour une période d’observation moyenne de 14.1 années était de 84.6%. Les paramètres paroïmplantaires ont été utilisés pour mesurer les conditions cliniques des implants. Sur les radiographies une perte osseuse horizontale ou des lésions angulaires ont pûêtre détectées sur 40% des implants si leur situation était comparée à celle de l’examen initial. Les profondeurs au sondage autour des implants étaient significativement augmentées comparées aux implants ayant un niveau osseux stable bien que les profondeurs au sondage moyennes ne dépassaient par respectivement 3.5 mm et 2.8 mm. De cette évaluation clinique, la première génération des implants ITI cylindriques creux peut donc être considérée comme donnant des résultats favorables à long terme.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Bevor Mitte der Achtzigerjahre die neue Generation von Bonefit ITI‐Implantaten entwickelt wurde, waren ab 1974 verschiedenste Typen von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten eingesetzt worden. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die klinische und radiologische Beurteilung von Hohlzylinderimplantaten vorzunehmen, die in der Zeit zwischen 1978 und 1987 bei teilbezahnten und zahnlosen Patienten eingesetzt worden waren. Die Implantate fanden Verwendung in Zusammenhang mit der Befestigung von Hybridprothesen, von festsitzenden Teilprothesen und als Anker von Einzelkronen. Während der gesamten Beobachtungszeit von 11.4 bis 19.7 Jahren (Durchschnitt 14.1) sind insgesamt 71 Patienten mit total 132 Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten, die noch <hi rend="italic">in situ</hi> waren, regelmässig nachuntersucht worden. 13 Implantate mussten explantiert werden, bevor eine Beobachtungszeit von 10 Jahren vorüber war, vier weitere Implantate gingen nach einer Funktionszeit von über 10 Jahren verloren und zwei Implantate wurden bei der Nachuntersuchung als Misserfolge eingestuft. Somit waren nach 10 Jahren noch 91.4% aller Implantate <hi rend="italic">in situ</hi> und die Überlebensrate für eine mittlere Beobachtungszeit von 14.1 Jahren war 84.6%. Zur Beurteilung der klinischen Situation der Implantate dienten periimplantäre Parameter. Verglich man mit der Ausgangssituation, so konnten bei 40% aller Implantate auf den Röntgenbildern ein horizontaler Knochenverlust oder anguläre Defekte festgestellt werden. Die Sondierungstiefen um diese Implantate waren signifikant höher verglichen mit Implantaten, die ein unverändertes Knochenniveau aufwiesen. Die mittlere Sondierungstiefe überstieg jedoch den Wert von 3.5 mm beziehungsweise 2.8 mm nicht. Aus diesen klinischen Untersuchungen konnten wir schliessen, dass mit der frühen Generation von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantate gute Langzeitresultate erreicht werden konnten.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>Desde 1974 se colocaron varios tipos de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos antes de que la nueva generación de implantes‐ITI Bonefit se desarrollase a mitad de los 80. La intención del presente estudio fue la evaluación clínica y radiográfica de los implantes cilíndricos huecos que fueron insertados durante el periodo de tiempo de 1978 a 1987 en pacientes parcial y completamente edéntulos para soportar sobredentaduras, prótesis parcial fijas y coronas unitarias. En conjunto 71 pacientes con total de 132 implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos aún en su lugar habían sido seguidos regularmente durante el periodo de observación de 11.4 a 19.7 años (media 14.1). Trece implantes tuvieron que ser retirados antes de que se completasen un periodo de observación de 10 años, 4 implantes adicionales se perdieron después de estar en función por más de 10 años y dos más se contabilizaron como fracaso en el momento del examen. Por ello 91.4% de los implantes estaban todavía en su lugar después de 10 años y el índice de supervivencia para el periodo medio de observación de 14.1 año fue del 84.6%. Los parámetros periimplantarios se usaron para valorar las condiciones clínicas de los implantes. En las radiografías se pudo detectar la pérdida horizontal de hueso o los defectos angulares en un 40% de todos los implantes si se compararon con la situación base incial. Las profundidades de sondaje alrededor de los implantes se incrementaron significativamente en comparación con los implantes con un nivel de hueso inalterado, de todos modos, las profundidades medias de sondaje no excedieron 3.5 mm y 2.8 mm respectivamente. De esta evaluación clínica se puede concluir que con la primera generación de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos se lograron unos resultados favorables a largo plazo.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">non‐submerged implants</term><term xml:id="k2">long‐term evaluation</term><term xml:id="k3">radiographic results</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2001.12.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="12">12</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2001-06">June 2001</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0025200" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR120310"></id><id type="supplier" value="clr10617"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-01-19"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-01-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="252">252</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="259">259</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>
<i>PD Dr. Regina Mericske‐Stern</i>,
Dept. of Prosthodontics
University of Bern
Freiburgstrasse 7
CH‐3010 Bern
Switzerland
e‐mail: <email>regina.mericske@zmk.unibe.ch</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR120310.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date: </b> Accepted 17 April 2000</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="6"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="7"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="27"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5661"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="16"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><title type="subtitle">Clinical and radiographic results</title><title type="shortAuthors">Mericske‐Stern et al</title><title type="short">Long‐term evaluation of early ITI‐implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Regina</givenNames><familyName>Merickse‐Stern</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Dominik</givenNames><familyName>Aerni</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Alfred H.</givenNames><familyName>Geering</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Daniel</givenNames><familyName>Buser</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">non‐submerged implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">long‐term evaluation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">radiographic results</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract:</b> From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still <i>in situ</i> had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still <i>in situ</i> after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Depuis 1974 différents types d’implants ITI cylindriques creux ont été placés avant la nouvelle génération d’implants ITI Bonefit qui a été mise sur le marché au milieu des années 80. Le but de cette étude a été l’évaluation tant clinique que radiologique des implants cylindriques creux qui avaient été insérés durant la période de 1978 à 1987 chez des patients édentés partiels ou complets pour servir d’ancrage à des prothèses totales, des prothèses partielles fixées et des couronnes uniques. En tout 71 patients avec un total de 132 implants toujours en place ont été suivis régulièrement durant cette période de 11.4 à 19.7 années (moyenne 14.1). Treize implants avaient dûêtre enlevés avant qu’une période d’observation de dix années ne soit achevée, quatre implants supplémentaires ont été perdus après une période de plus de dix années d’activité et deux supplémentaires ont été considérés comme échecs lors de l’examen. Ainsi 91.4% des implants étaient toujours en place après dix ans et le taux de succès pour une période d’observation moyenne de 14.1 années était de 84.6%. Les paramètres paroïmplantaires ont été utilisés pour mesurer les conditions cliniques des implants. Sur les radiographies une perte osseuse horizontale ou des lésions angulaires ont pûêtre détectées sur 40% des implants si leur situation était comparée à celle de l’examen initial. Les profondeurs au sondage autour des implants étaient significativement augmentées comparées aux implants ayant un niveau osseux stable bien que les profondeurs au sondage moyennes ne dépassaient par respectivement 3.5 mm et 2.8 mm. De cette évaluation clinique, la première génération des implants ITI cylindriques creux peut donc être considérée comme donnant des résultats favorables à long terme.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Bevor Mitte der Achtzigerjahre die neue Generation von Bonefit ITI‐Implantaten entwickelt wurde, waren ab 1974 verschiedenste Typen von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten eingesetzt worden. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die klinische und radiologische Beurteilung von Hohlzylinderimplantaten vorzunehmen, die in der Zeit zwischen 1978 und 1987 bei teilbezahnten und zahnlosen Patienten eingesetzt worden waren. Die Implantate fanden Verwendung in Zusammenhang mit der Befestigung von Hybridprothesen, von festsitzenden Teilprothesen und als Anker von Einzelkronen. Während der gesamten Beobachtungszeit von 11.4 bis 19.7 Jahren (Durchschnitt 14.1) sind insgesamt 71 Patienten mit total 132 Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten, die noch <i>in situ</i> waren, regelmässig nachuntersucht worden. 13 Implantate mussten explantiert werden, bevor eine Beobachtungszeit von 10 Jahren vorüber war, vier weitere Implantate gingen nach einer Funktionszeit von über 10 Jahren verloren und zwei Implantate wurden bei der Nachuntersuchung als Misserfolge eingestuft. Somit waren nach 10 Jahren noch 91.4% aller Implantate <i>in situ</i> und die Überlebensrate für eine mittlere Beobachtungszeit von 14.1 Jahren war 84.6%. Zur Beurteilung der klinischen Situation der Implantate dienten periimplantäre Parameter. Verglich man mit der Ausgangssituation, so konnten bei 40% aller Implantate auf den Röntgenbildern ein horizontaler Knochenverlust oder anguläre Defekte festgestellt werden. Die Sondierungstiefen um diese Implantate waren signifikant höher verglichen mit Implantaten, die ein unverändertes Knochenniveau aufwiesen. Die mittlere Sondierungstiefe überstieg jedoch den Wert von 3.5 mm beziehungsweise 2.8 mm nicht. Aus diesen klinischen Untersuchungen konnten wir schliessen, dass mit der frühen Generation von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantate gute Langzeitresultate erreicht werden konnten.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>Desde 1974 se colocaron varios tipos de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos antes de que la nueva generación de implantes‐ITI Bonefit se desarrollase a mitad de los 80. La intención del presente estudio fue la evaluación clínica y radiográfica de los implantes cilíndricos huecos que fueron insertados durante el periodo de tiempo de 1978 a 1987 en pacientes parcial y completamente edéntulos para soportar sobredentaduras, prótesis parcial fijas y coronas unitarias. En conjunto 71 pacientes con total de 132 implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos aún en su lugar habían sido seguidos regularmente durante el periodo de observación de 11.4 a 19.7 años (media 14.1). Trece implantes tuvieron que ser retirados antes de que se completasen un periodo de observación de 10 años, 4 implantes adicionales se perdieron después de estar en función por más de 10 años y dos más se contabilizaron como fracaso en el momento del examen. Por ello 91.4% de los implantes estaban todavía en su lugar después de 10 años y el índice de supervivencia para el periodo medio de observación de 14.1 año fue del 84.6%. Los parámetros periimplantarios se usaron para valorar las condiciones clínicas de los implantes. En las radiografías se pudo detectar la pérdida horizontal de hueso o los defectos angulares en un 40% de todos los implantes si se compararon con la situación base incial. Las profundidades de sondaje alrededor de los implantes se incrementaron significativamente en comparación con los implantes con un nivel de hueso inalterado, de todos modos, las profundidades medias de sondaje no excedieron 3.5 mm y 2.8 mm respectivamente. De esta evaluación clínica se puede concluir que con la primera generación de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos se lograron unos resultados favorables a largo plazo.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title><subTitle>Clinical and radiographic results</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Long‐term evaluation of early ITI‐implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Regina</namePart><namePart type="family">Merickse‐Stern</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Dominik</namePart><namePart type="family">Aerni</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Alfred H.</namePart><namePart type="family">Geering</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart><namePart type="family">Buser</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2001-06</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 17 April 2000</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2001</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">6</extent><extent unit="tables">7</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">27</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">8</extent><extent unit="words">5661</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: From 1974 various types of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants were placed before the new generation of Bonefit ITI‐implants was developed in the mid‐eighties. The aim of this study was the clinical and radiographic evaluation of hollow cylinder implants that were inserted during the time period of 1978–1987 in partially and completely edentulous patients to support overdentures, fixed partial prostheses and single crowns. Altogether, 71 patients with a total of 132 hollow cylinder ITI‐implants still in situ had been followed regularly during the entire observation period of 11.4 to 19.7 years (mean 14.1). Thirteen implants had to be removed before an observation period of 10 years was completed, 4 additional implants were lost after being in function for over 10 years and two further implants were considered to be failures at the time of the examination. Thus 91.4% of the implants were still in situ after 10 years and the survival rate for a mean observation period of 14.1 years was 84.6%. Periimplant parameters were used to assess the clinical conditions of the implants. On the radiographs, horizontal bone loss or angular defects could be detected on 40% of all implants if compared to the base‐line situation. The probing depths around these implants were significantly increased compared to implants with an unchanged bone level, however the mean probing depths did not exceed 3.5 mm and 2.8 mm respectively. From this clinical evaluation one may conclude that with the early generation of hollow cylinder ITI‐implants favorable long‐term results were achieved.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Depuis 1974 différents types d’implants ITI cylindriques creux ont été placés avant la nouvelle génération d’implants ITI Bonefit qui a été mise sur le marché au milieu des années 80. Le but de cette étude a été l’évaluation tant clinique que radiologique des implants cylindriques creux qui avaient été insérés durant la période de 1978 à 1987 chez des patients édentés partiels ou complets pour servir d’ancrage à des prothèses totales, des prothèses partielles fixées et des couronnes uniques. En tout 71 patients avec un total de 132 implants toujours en place ont été suivis régulièrement durant cette période de 11.4 à 19.7 années (moyenne 14.1). Treize implants avaient dûêtre enlevés avant qu’une période d’observation de dix années ne soit achevée, quatre implants supplémentaires ont été perdus après une période de plus de dix années d’activité et deux supplémentaires ont été considérés comme échecs lors de l’examen. Ainsi 91.4% des implants étaient toujours en place après dix ans et le taux de succès pour une période d’observation moyenne de 14.1 années était de 84.6%. Les paramètres paroïmplantaires ont été utilisés pour mesurer les conditions cliniques des implants. Sur les radiographies une perte osseuse horizontale ou des lésions angulaires ont pûêtre détectées sur 40% des implants si leur situation était comparée à celle de l’examen initial. Les profondeurs au sondage autour des implants étaient significativement augmentées comparées aux implants ayant un niveau osseux stable bien que les profondeurs au sondage moyennes ne dépassaient par respectivement 3.5 mm et 2.8 mm. De cette évaluation clinique, la première génération des implants ITI cylindriques creux peut donc être considérée comme donnant des résultats favorables à long terme.</abstract><abstract lang="de">Bevor Mitte der Achtzigerjahre die neue Generation von Bonefit ITI‐Implantaten entwickelt wurde, waren ab 1974 verschiedenste Typen von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten eingesetzt worden. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die klinische und radiologische Beurteilung von Hohlzylinderimplantaten vorzunehmen, die in der Zeit zwischen 1978 und 1987 bei teilbezahnten und zahnlosen Patienten eingesetzt worden waren. Die Implantate fanden Verwendung in Zusammenhang mit der Befestigung von Hybridprothesen, von festsitzenden Teilprothesen und als Anker von Einzelkronen. Während der gesamten Beobachtungszeit von 11.4 bis 19.7 Jahren (Durchschnitt 14.1) sind insgesamt 71 Patienten mit total 132 Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantaten, die noch in situ waren, regelmässig nachuntersucht worden. 13 Implantate mussten explantiert werden, bevor eine Beobachtungszeit von 10 Jahren vorüber war, vier weitere Implantate gingen nach einer Funktionszeit von über 10 Jahren verloren und zwei Implantate wurden bei der Nachuntersuchung als Misserfolge eingestuft. Somit waren nach 10 Jahren noch 91.4% aller Implantate in situ und die Überlebensrate für eine mittlere Beobachtungszeit von 14.1 Jahren war 84.6%. Zur Beurteilung der klinischen Situation der Implantate dienten periimplantäre Parameter. Verglich man mit der Ausgangssituation, so konnten bei 40% aller Implantate auf den Röntgenbildern ein horizontaler Knochenverlust oder anguläre Defekte festgestellt werden. Die Sondierungstiefen um diese Implantate waren signifikant höher verglichen mit Implantaten, die ein unverändertes Knochenniveau aufwiesen. Die mittlere Sondierungstiefe überstieg jedoch den Wert von 3.5 mm beziehungsweise 2.8 mm nicht. Aus diesen klinischen Untersuchungen konnten wir schliessen, dass mit der frühen Generation von Hohlzylinder ITI‐Implantate gute Langzeitresultate erreicht werden konnten.</abstract><abstract lang="es">Desde 1974 se colocaron varios tipos de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos antes de que la nueva generación de implantes‐ITI Bonefit se desarrollase a mitad de los 80. La intención del presente estudio fue la evaluación clínica y radiográfica de los implantes cilíndricos huecos que fueron insertados durante el periodo de tiempo de 1978 a 1987 en pacientes parcial y completamente edéntulos para soportar sobredentaduras, prótesis parcial fijas y coronas unitarias. En conjunto 71 pacientes con total de 132 implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos aún en su lugar habían sido seguidos regularmente durante el periodo de observación de 11.4 a 19.7 años (media 14.1). Trece implantes tuvieron que ser retirados antes de que se completasen un periodo de observación de 10 años, 4 implantes adicionales se perdieron después de estar en función por más de 10 años y dos más se contabilizaron como fracaso en el momento del examen. Por ello 91.4% de los implantes estaban todavía en su lugar después de 10 años y el índice de supervivencia para el periodo medio de observación de 14.1 año fue del 84.6%. Los parámetros periimplantarios se usaron para valorar las condiciones clínicas de los implantes. En las radiografías se pudo detectar la pérdida horizontal de hueso o los defectos angulares en un 40% de todos los implantes si se compararon con la situación base incial. Las profundidades de sondaje alrededor de los implantes se incrementaron significativamente en comparación con los implantes con un nivel de hueso inalterado, de todos modos, las profundidades medias de sondaje no excedieron 3.5 mm y 2.8 mm respectivamente. De esta evaluación clínica se puede concluir que con la primera generación de implantes‐ITI cilíndricos huecos se lograron unos resultados favorables a largo plazo.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>non‐submerged implants</topic><topic>long‐term evaluation</topic><topic>radiographic results</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>12</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>252</start><end>259</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-SVWC62QW-M</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003252.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR120310</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002C74 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002C74 | 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:5AD54A60477C7F43E435DB954FEACAAA02E3E4EC
|texte= Long‐term evaluation of non‐submerged hollow cylinder implants
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |