Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis
Identifieur interne : 003026 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003025; suivant : 003027Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis
Auteurs : Marc Quirynen ; Wouter Peeters ; Daniel Van Steenberghe ; Ignace Naert ; Wim Coucke ; D. Van SteenbergheSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2001-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment types, Alrededor, Ankylosed teeth, Attachment level, Attachment loss, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone remodelling, Catholic university, Clinical periodontology, Corresponding data, Corresponding implants, Cynomolgus monkeys, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Experimental design, Gingival recession, Hueso alrededor, Implant, Implants research, Information criterion, International journal, Interval attachment loss, Interval bone loss, Interval period, Lang, Last visit, Least interval bone loss, Leuven, Macaca fascicularis, Machined, Machined surface, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone level mesially, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial implants, Mombelli, Mombelli lang, Natural dentition, Natural teeth, Observation period, Ongoing periodontitis, Oral hygiene, Oral impl, Oral implants, Oral pathology surgery, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Perdida, Periodontal, Periodontal destruction, Periodontal disease, Periodontal parameters, Periodontitis, Periodontology, Perte, Perte osseuse autour, Plaque, Plaque index, Present study, Progressive periodontitis, Prosthetic dentistry, Quintessence books, Quirynen, Regression analyses, Regression line, Regression lines, Statistical analysis, Steenberghe, Study population, Subgingival, Subgingival ligatures, Surface usinee, Survival rate, Systema, Systema implants, Titanium, Titanium implants, Tooth loss, Worst tooth.
- Teeft :
- Abutment types, Alrededor, Ankylosed teeth, Attachment level, Attachment loss, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone remodelling, Catholic university, Clinical periodontology, Corresponding data, Corresponding implants, Cynomolgus monkeys, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Experimental design, Gingival recession, Hueso alrededor, Implant, Implants research, Information criterion, International journal, Interval attachment loss, Interval bone loss, Interval period, Lang, Last visit, Least interval bone loss, Leuven, Macaca fascicularis, Machined, Machined surface, Marginal bone, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone level mesially, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial implants, Mombelli, Mombelli lang, Natural dentition, Natural teeth, Observation period, Ongoing periodontitis, Oral hygiene, Oral impl, Oral implants, Oral pathology surgery, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Perdida, Periodontal, Periodontal destruction, Periodontal disease, Periodontal parameters, Periodontitis, Periodontology, Perte, Perte osseuse autour, Plaque, Plaque index, Present study, Progressive periodontitis, Prosthetic dentistry, Quintessence books, Quirynen, Regression analyses, Regression line, Regression lines, Statistical analysis, Steenberghe, Study population, Subgingival, Subgingival ligatures, Surface usinee, Survival rate, Systema, Systema implants, Titanium, Titanium implants, Tooth loss, Worst tooth.
Abstract
Abstract: The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (n=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system®). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (P=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system® implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title><author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Peeters, Wouter" sort="Peeters, Wouter" uniqKey="Peeters W" first="Wouter" last="Peeters">Wouter Peeters</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Steenberghe, Daniel Van" sort="Steenberghe, Daniel Van" uniqKey="Steenberghe D" first="Daniel Van" last="Steenberghe">Daniel Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, Ignace" sort="Naert, Ignace" uniqKey="Naert I" first="Ignace" last="Naert">Ignace Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Coucke, Wim" sort="Coucke, Wim" uniqKey="Coucke W" first="Wim" last="Coucke">Wim Coucke</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, D" sort="Van Steenberghe, D" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="D." last="Van Steenberghe">D. Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003026</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003026</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title><author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Peeters, Wouter" sort="Peeters, Wouter" uniqKey="Peeters W" first="Wouter" last="Peeters">Wouter Peeters</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Steenberghe, Daniel Van" sort="Steenberghe, Daniel Van" uniqKey="Steenberghe D" first="Daniel Van" last="Steenberghe">Daniel Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, Ignace" sort="Naert, Ignace" uniqKey="Naert I" first="Ignace" last="Naert">Ignace Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Coucke, Wim" sort="Coucke, Wim" uniqKey="Coucke W" first="Wim" last="Coucke">Wim Coucke</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, D" sort="Van Steenberghe, D" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="D." last="Van Steenberghe">D. Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</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">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="589">589</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="594">594</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-12">2001-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment types</term><term>Alrededor</term><term>Ankylosed teeth</term><term>Attachment level</term><term>Attachment loss</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone remodelling</term><term>Catholic university</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Corresponding data</term><term>Corresponding implants</term><term>Cynomolgus monkeys</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Experimental design</term><term>Gingival recession</term><term>Hueso alrededor</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Information criterion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Interval attachment loss</term><term>Interval bone loss</term><term>Interval period</term><term>Lang</term><term>Last visit</term><term>Least interval bone loss</term><term>Leuven</term><term>Macaca fascicularis</term><term>Machined</term><term>Machined surface</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone level mesially</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Mombelli</term><term>Mombelli lang</term><term>Natural dentition</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Ongoing periodontitis</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral pathology surgery</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Perdida</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal destruction</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Periodontal parameters</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Perte</term><term>Perte osseuse autour</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque index</term><term>Present study</term><term>Progressive periodontitis</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Quintessence books</term><term>Quirynen</term><term>Regression analyses</term><term>Regression line</term><term>Regression lines</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Steenberghe</term><term>Study population</term><term>Subgingival</term><term>Subgingival ligatures</term><term>Surface usinee</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Systema</term><term>Systema implants</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Tooth loss</term><term>Worst tooth</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment types</term><term>Alrededor</term><term>Ankylosed teeth</term><term>Attachment level</term><term>Attachment loss</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone remodelling</term><term>Catholic university</term><term>Clinical periodontology</term><term>Corresponding data</term><term>Corresponding implants</term><term>Cynomolgus monkeys</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Experimental design</term><term>Gingival recession</term><term>Hueso alrededor</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Information criterion</term><term>International journal</term><term>Interval attachment loss</term><term>Interval bone loss</term><term>Interval period</term><term>Lang</term><term>Last visit</term><term>Least interval bone loss</term><term>Leuven</term><term>Macaca fascicularis</term><term>Machined</term><term>Machined surface</term><term>Marginal bone</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone level mesially</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Mombelli</term><term>Mombelli lang</term><term>Natural dentition</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Ongoing periodontitis</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral implants</term><term>Oral pathology surgery</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Perdida</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal destruction</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Periodontal parameters</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Perte</term><term>Perte osseuse autour</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque index</term><term>Present study</term><term>Progressive periodontitis</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Quintessence books</term><term>Quirynen</term><term>Regression analyses</term><term>Regression line</term><term>Regression lines</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Steenberghe</term><term>Study population</term><term>Subgingival</term><term>Subgingival ligatures</term><term>Surface usinee</term><term>Survival rate</term><term>Systema</term><term>Systema implants</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Tooth loss</term><term>Worst tooth</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (n=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system®). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (P=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system® implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>periodontitis</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>quirynen</json:string><json:string>periodontology</json:string><json:string>periodontal</json:string><json:string>steenberghe</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>mombelli</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>perte</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>perdida</json:string><json:string>systema</json:string><json:string>machined</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>subgingival</json:string><json:string>leuven</json:string><json:string>alrededor</json:string><json:string>regression line</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>interval bone loss</json:string><json:string>regression lines</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>lang</json:string><json:string>attachment loss</json:string><json:string>tooth loss</json:string><json:string>progressive periodontitis</json:string><json:string>regression analyses</json:string><json:string>periodontal parameters</json:string><json:string>ongoing periodontitis</json:string><json:string>clinical periodontology</json:string><json:string>worst tooth</json:string><json:string>abutment types</json:string><json:string>observation period</json:string><json:string>natural dentition</json:string><json:string>mombelli lang</json:string><json:string>attachment level</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>bone remodelling</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>cynomolgus monkeys</json:string><json:string>periodontal destruction</json:string><json:string>catholic university</json:string><json:string>corresponding data</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>plaque</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>corresponding implants</json:string><json:string>study population</json:string><json:string>last visit</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level mesially</json:string><json:string>interval attachment loss</json:string><json:string>gingival recession</json:string><json:string>experimental design</json:string><json:string>least interval bone loss</json:string><json:string>subgingival ligatures</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>systema implants</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>statistical analysis</json:string><json:string>surface usinee</json:string><json:string>perte osseuse autour</json:string><json:string>periodontal disease</json:string><json:string>quintessence books</json:string><json:string>hueso alrededor</json:string><json:string>plaque index</json:string><json:string>marginal bone</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>information criterion</json:string><json:string>oral pathology surgery</json:string><json:string>oral implants</json:string><json:string>oral hygiene</json:string><json:string>machined surface</json:string><json:string>ankylosed teeth</json:string><json:string>macaca fascicularis</json:string><json:string>interval period</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Marc Quirynen</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</json:string><json:string>E-mail: Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Wouter Peeters</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Daniel van Steenberghe</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ignace Naert</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Wim Coucke</name><affiliations><json:string>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>D. Van Steenberghe</name><affiliations><json:string>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>periodontal attachment loss</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone loss</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>peri‐implantitis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>periodontitis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>plaque</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>smoking</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR120606</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-VD5CHQGN-0</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (n=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system®). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (P=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system® implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>199</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1391</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>7</keywordCount><score>8.847</score><pdfWordCount>4459</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>29375</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 795 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title><pmid><json:string>11737102</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>6</issue><pages><first>589</first><last>594</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2001</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital of the Catholic University Leuven</json:string><json:string>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology Catholic University Leuven Kapucijnenvoer</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology</json:string><json:string>Leuven Belgium Tel</json:string><json:string>Catholic University</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Marc Quirynen</json:string><json:string>M. Quirynen</json:string><json:string>Daniel van Steenberghe</json:string><json:string>Titanimplantate</json:string><json:string>Ellegaard</json:string><json:string>Esposito</json:string><json:string>Malmstrom</json:string><json:string>Ignace Naert</json:string><json:string>D. van Steenberghe</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>Leuven</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Belgium</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>van Steenberghe et al. 1999b</json:string><json:string>Apse et al. 1989</json:string><json:string>Leonhardt et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Bain & Moy 1993</json:string><json:string>van Steenberghe et al. 1999a</json:string><json:string>Hancock & Wirthlin 1977</json:string><json:string>Klinge 1991</json:string><json:string>Akagawa et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Tillmanns et al. 1997, 1998</json:string><json:string>Leonhardt et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Papaioannou et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Quirynen et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Silness & Löe 1964</json:string><json:string>Lindhe et al.</json:string><json:string>Hanisch et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Hutton et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Fardal et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Malmstrom et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Esposito et al. 1998, 1999</json:string><json:string>Schou et al. 1993, 1996</json:string><json:string>Lang et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Eke et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Hickey et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Quirynen et al. 2001</json:string><json:string>Quirynen & Listgarten 1990</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1995</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-VD5CHQGN-0</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2001</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x</json:string></doi><id>62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-12"></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">Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title><title level="a" type="short">Periodontitis and peri‐implantitis</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Marc</forename><surname>Quirynen</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation><affiliation>
*Prof. M. Quirynen,
Department of Periodontology
Catholic University Leuven
Kapucijnenvoer 33
B‐3000 Leuven
Belgium
Tel: +32 16 33 24 07
Fax: +32 16 33 24 84
e‐mail: Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Wouter</forename><surname>Peeters</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Daniel van</forename><surname>Steenberghe</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Ignace</forename><surname>Naert</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Wim</forename><surname>Coucke</surname></persName><affiliation>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">D.</forename><surname>Van Steenberghe</surname></persName><affiliation>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-VD5CHQGN-0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR120606</idno><idno type="supplier">clr10o667</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR120606.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-6</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="589">589</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="594">594</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract:</hi> The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (<hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>L’étude présente compare chez des patients partiellement édentés (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=84, 97 mâchoires) la perte osseuse marginale autour de dents et d’implants sur une période de quatre années (3 à 11 ans) après la première année du remodelage osseux. Les patients avaient tous été soignés à l’aide d’implants en titane‐vis avec une surface usinée <hi rend="italic">ad modum</hi> Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>. Durant l’intervalle d’observation de cinq ans, des paramètres parodontaux (os marginal et perte d’attache, cette dernière pour les dents seulement) ont été enregistrés avec les données de co‐facteurs (tabagisme, hygiène buccale, perte dentaire). La perte osseuse marginale a été mesurée à l’aide de radiographies long‐cône. La perte osseuse moyenne était significativement plus importante (<hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.0001) autour des dents (0.48±0.95 mm) qu’autour des implants (0.09±0.28 mm). Les données correspondantes pour les plus mauvaises dents (0.99±0.25 mm) et implants (0.19±0.32 mm) montraient chez chaque sujet la même tendance. Ni la perte d’attache ni la perte osseuse autour des dents n’étaient en corrélation avec la perte osseuse marginale autour des implants. Cette étude indique que le taux de perte osseuse autour des implants‐vis en titane avec une surface usinée <hi rend="italic">ad modum</hi> Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> n’était pas influencé par le taux de progression de la destruction parodontale autour des dents restantes dans la même mâchoire.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Der Zusammenhang zwischen Parodontitis und Peri‐Implantitis bleibt umstritten. Die vorliegende Studie verglich innerhalb von zufällig ausgewählten teilbezahnten Patienten (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=84 Subjekte, 97 Kiefer) den Verlust an marginalem Knochen um Zähne und Implantate über einen durchschnittlichen Zeitraum von 5 Jahren (Bandbreite 3 bis 11 Jahre) nach dem ersten Jahr der Knochenremodellierung. Alle Patienten waren mittels schraubenförmigen reinen Titanimplantaten, welche eine maschinell bearbeitete Oberfläche aufwiesen (Brånemark System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>), versorgt worden. Während der Beobachtungszeit von fünf Jahren wurden parodontale Parameter (marginaler Knochenverlust und Attachmentverlust, letzteres nur bei Zähnen) aufgenommen und verschlimmernde Faktoren (Rauchen, orale Hygiene, Zahnverlust) wurden registriert. Der Verlust an marginalem Knochen wurde auf intraoralen Röntgenaufnahmen, welche mittels Langkonus‐Technik aufgenommen wurden, ausgemessen. Der mittlere “Intervall”‐Knochenverlust war bei Zähnen (0.48±0.95 mm) signifikant (<hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.0001) grösser als bei Implantaten (0.09±0.28 mm). Die entsprechenden Werte für den “schlechtesten” Zahn (0.99±1.25 mm) und das ‘’schlechteste” Implantat (0.19±0.32 mm) pro Subjekt zeigten dieselbe Tendenz. Weder der Attachmentverlust noch der Knochenverlust um Zähne korrelierte mit dem marginalen Knochenverlust um Implantate. Diese Studie zeigte, dass das Ausmass des Knochenverlustes um schraubenförmige reine Titanimplantate mit maschinell bearbeiteter Oberfläche (Implantate des Brånemark System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>) nicht durch die Progressionsrate der parodontalen Zerstörung um die verbliebenen Zähne innerhalb desselben Kiefers beeinflusst wurde.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>La relación entre periodontitis y periimplantitis permanece como un asunto de debate. El presente estudio comparó, dentro de un grupo de pacientes parcialmente edéntulos (<hi rend="italic">n</hi>=84 sujetos, 97 maxillares) elegidos al azar, la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de dientes e implantes durante 5 años (rango 3 a 11 años) después del primer año de remodelado óseo. Todos habían sido rehabilitados por medio de implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (sistema Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>). Durante el intervalo de observación de 5 años se recogieron parámetros periodontales (pérdida de hueso marginal y de inserción, esto último únicamente para dientes) junto con datos sobre factores de confusión (tabaco, higiene oral, pérdida de dientes). Se midió la pérdida de hueso marginal por medio de radiografías de cono largo intraorales. El intervalo medio de pérdida de hueso fue significativamente (<hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.0001) más alto alrededor de los dientes (0.48±0.95 mm) que alrededor de los implantes (0.09±0.28 mm). Los datos correspondientes para el diente de peor comportamiento (0.99±1.25 mm) e implantes (0.19±0.32 mm) por sujeto mostraron la misma tendencia. Ni la pérdida de inserción o de hueso alrededor de los dientes se correlacionó con la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de los implantes. Este estudio indica que el índice de pérdida de hueso alrededor de los implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (implantes del sistema Brånemark no fue influida por el indice de progresión de la destrucción periodontal alrededor de los dientes remanentes dentro del mismo maxilar.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">periodontal attachment loss</term><term xml:id="k2">bone loss</term><term xml:id="k3">implants</term><term xml:id="k4">peri‐implantitis</term><term xml:id="k5">periodontitis</term><term xml:id="k6">plaque</term><term xml:id="k7">smoking</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/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/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="12006"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2001.12.issue-6</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="12">12</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="6">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2001-12">December 2001</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0058900" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR120606"></id><id type="supplier" value="clr10o667"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2008-07-07"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2008-07-07"></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="589">589</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="594">594</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>
*<i>Prof. M. Quirynen</i>,
Department of Periodontology
Catholic University Leuven
Kapucijnenvoer 33
B‐3000 Leuven
Belgium
Tel: +32 16 33 24 07
Fax: +32 16 33 24 84
e‐mail: <email>Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR120606.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date: </b> Accepted 16 November 2000</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="4"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="36"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4862"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="31"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="2"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title><title type="shortAuthors">Quirynen et al</title><title type="short">Periodontitis and peri‐implantitis</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Marc</givenNames><familyName>Quirynen</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Wouter</givenNames><familyName>Peeters</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Daniel van</givenNames><familyName>Steenberghe</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Ignace</givenNames><familyName>Naert</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Wim</givenNames><familyName>Coucke</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>D.</givenNames><familyName>Van Steenberghe</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4"><unparsedAffiliation>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">periodontal attachment loss</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">bone loss</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">peri‐implantitis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">periodontitis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">plaque</keyword><keyword xml:id="k7">smoking</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract:</b> The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (<i>n</i>=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system<sup>®</sup>). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (<i>P</i>=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system<sup>®</sup> implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>L’étude présente compare chez des patients partiellement édentés (<i>n</i>=84, 97 mâchoires) la perte osseuse marginale autour de dents et d’implants sur une période de quatre années (3 à 11 ans) après la première année du remodelage osseux. Les patients avaient tous été soignés à l’aide d’implants en titane‐vis avec une surface usinée <i>ad modum</i> Brånemark<sup>®</sup>. Durant l’intervalle d’observation de cinq ans, des paramètres parodontaux (os marginal et perte d’attache, cette dernière pour les dents seulement) ont été enregistrés avec les données de co‐facteurs (tabagisme, hygiène buccale, perte dentaire). La perte osseuse marginale a été mesurée à l’aide de radiographies long‐cône. La perte osseuse moyenne était significativement plus importante (<i>P</i>=0.0001) autour des dents (0.48±0.95 mm) qu’autour des implants (0.09±0.28 mm). Les données correspondantes pour les plus mauvaises dents (0.99±0.25 mm) et implants (0.19±0.32 mm) montraient chez chaque sujet la même tendance. Ni la perte d’attache ni la perte osseuse autour des dents n’étaient en corrélation avec la perte osseuse marginale autour des implants. Cette étude indique que le taux de perte osseuse autour des implants‐vis en titane avec une surface usinée <i>ad modum</i> Brånemark<sup>®</sup> n’était pas influencé par le taux de progression de la destruction parodontale autour des dents restantes dans la même mâchoire.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Der Zusammenhang zwischen Parodontitis und Peri‐Implantitis bleibt umstritten. Die vorliegende Studie verglich innerhalb von zufällig ausgewählten teilbezahnten Patienten (<i>n</i>=84 Subjekte, 97 Kiefer) den Verlust an marginalem Knochen um Zähne und Implantate über einen durchschnittlichen Zeitraum von 5 Jahren (Bandbreite 3 bis 11 Jahre) nach dem ersten Jahr der Knochenremodellierung. Alle Patienten waren mittels schraubenförmigen reinen Titanimplantaten, welche eine maschinell bearbeitete Oberfläche aufwiesen (Brånemark System<sup>®</sup>), versorgt worden. Während der Beobachtungszeit von fünf Jahren wurden parodontale Parameter (marginaler Knochenverlust und Attachmentverlust, letzteres nur bei Zähnen) aufgenommen und verschlimmernde Faktoren (Rauchen, orale Hygiene, Zahnverlust) wurden registriert. Der Verlust an marginalem Knochen wurde auf intraoralen Röntgenaufnahmen, welche mittels Langkonus‐Technik aufgenommen wurden, ausgemessen. Der mittlere “Intervall”‐Knochenverlust war bei Zähnen (0.48±0.95 mm) signifikant (<i>P</i>=0.0001) grösser als bei Implantaten (0.09±0.28 mm). Die entsprechenden Werte für den “schlechtesten” Zahn (0.99±1.25 mm) und das ‘’schlechteste” Implantat (0.19±0.32 mm) pro Subjekt zeigten dieselbe Tendenz. Weder der Attachmentverlust noch der Knochenverlust um Zähne korrelierte mit dem marginalen Knochenverlust um Implantate. Diese Studie zeigte, dass das Ausmass des Knochenverlustes um schraubenförmige reine Titanimplantate mit maschinell bearbeiteter Oberfläche (Implantate des Brånemark System<sup>®</sup>) nicht durch die Progressionsrate der parodontalen Zerstörung um die verbliebenen Zähne innerhalb desselben Kiefers beeinflusst wurde.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>La relación entre periodontitis y periimplantitis permanece como un asunto de debate. El presente estudio comparó, dentro de un grupo de pacientes parcialmente edéntulos (<i>n</i>=84 sujetos, 97 maxillares) elegidos al azar, la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de dientes e implantes durante 5 años (rango 3 a 11 años) después del primer año de remodelado óseo. Todos habían sido rehabilitados por medio de implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (sistema Brånemark<sup>®</sup>). Durante el intervalo de observación de 5 años se recogieron parámetros periodontales (pérdida de hueso marginal y de inserción, esto último únicamente para dientes) junto con datos sobre factores de confusión (tabaco, higiene oral, pérdida de dientes). Se midió la pérdida de hueso marginal por medio de radiografías de cono largo intraorales. El intervalo medio de pérdida de hueso fue significativamente (<i>P</i>=0.0001) más alto alrededor de los dientes (0.48±0.95 mm) que alrededor de los implantes (0.09±0.28 mm). Los datos correspondientes para el diente de peor comportamiento (0.99±1.25 mm) e implantes (0.19±0.32 mm) por sujeto mostraron la misma tendencia. Ni la pérdida de inserción o de hueso alrededor de los dientes se correlacionó con la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de los implantes. Este estudio indica que el índice de pérdida de hueso alrededor de los implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (implantes del sistema Brånemark no fue influida por el indice de progresión de la destrucción periodontal alrededor de los dientes remanentes dentro del mismo maxilar.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Periodontitis and peri‐implantitis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Marc</namePart><namePart type="family">Quirynen</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: Marc.Quirynen@med.kuleuven.ac.be</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Wouter</namePart><namePart type="family">Peeters</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Daniel van</namePart><namePart type="family">Steenberghe</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ignace</namePart><namePart type="family">Naert</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology & Maxillo‐Facial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Wim</namePart><namePart type="family">Coucke</namePart><affiliation>Laboratory for Statistics and Experimental Design, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">D.</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Steenberghe</namePart><affiliation>Holder of the Prof. P‐I. Brånemark chair in osseointegration</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">2001-12</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 16 November 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">4</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">36</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">2</extent><extent unit="words">4862</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: The relationship between periodontitis and peri‐implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, “within” randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (n=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system®). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long‐cone intra‐oral radiographs. The mean “interval” bone loss was significantly (P=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48±0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09±0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the “worst” performing tooth (0.99±1.25 mm) and implant (0.19±0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw‐shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system® implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">L’étude présente compare chez des patients partiellement édentés (n=84, 97 mâchoires) la perte osseuse marginale autour de dents et d’implants sur une période de quatre années (3 à 11 ans) après la première année du remodelage osseux. Les patients avaient tous été soignés à l’aide d’implants en titane‐vis avec une surface usinée ad modum Brånemark®. Durant l’intervalle d’observation de cinq ans, des paramètres parodontaux (os marginal et perte d’attache, cette dernière pour les dents seulement) ont été enregistrés avec les données de co‐facteurs (tabagisme, hygiène buccale, perte dentaire). La perte osseuse marginale a été mesurée à l’aide de radiographies long‐cône. La perte osseuse moyenne était significativement plus importante (P=0.0001) autour des dents (0.48±0.95 mm) qu’autour des implants (0.09±0.28 mm). Les données correspondantes pour les plus mauvaises dents (0.99±0.25 mm) et implants (0.19±0.32 mm) montraient chez chaque sujet la même tendance. Ni la perte d’attache ni la perte osseuse autour des dents n’étaient en corrélation avec la perte osseuse marginale autour des implants. Cette étude indique que le taux de perte osseuse autour des implants‐vis en titane avec une surface usinée ad modum Brånemark® n’était pas influencé par le taux de progression de la destruction parodontale autour des dents restantes dans la même mâchoire.</abstract><abstract lang="de">Der Zusammenhang zwischen Parodontitis und Peri‐Implantitis bleibt umstritten. Die vorliegende Studie verglich innerhalb von zufällig ausgewählten teilbezahnten Patienten (n=84 Subjekte, 97 Kiefer) den Verlust an marginalem Knochen um Zähne und Implantate über einen durchschnittlichen Zeitraum von 5 Jahren (Bandbreite 3 bis 11 Jahre) nach dem ersten Jahr der Knochenremodellierung. Alle Patienten waren mittels schraubenförmigen reinen Titanimplantaten, welche eine maschinell bearbeitete Oberfläche aufwiesen (Brånemark System®), versorgt worden. Während der Beobachtungszeit von fünf Jahren wurden parodontale Parameter (marginaler Knochenverlust und Attachmentverlust, letzteres nur bei Zähnen) aufgenommen und verschlimmernde Faktoren (Rauchen, orale Hygiene, Zahnverlust) wurden registriert. Der Verlust an marginalem Knochen wurde auf intraoralen Röntgenaufnahmen, welche mittels Langkonus‐Technik aufgenommen wurden, ausgemessen. Der mittlere “Intervall”‐Knochenverlust war bei Zähnen (0.48±0.95 mm) signifikant (P=0.0001) grösser als bei Implantaten (0.09±0.28 mm). Die entsprechenden Werte für den “schlechtesten” Zahn (0.99±1.25 mm) und das ‘’schlechteste” Implantat (0.19±0.32 mm) pro Subjekt zeigten dieselbe Tendenz. Weder der Attachmentverlust noch der Knochenverlust um Zähne korrelierte mit dem marginalen Knochenverlust um Implantate. Diese Studie zeigte, dass das Ausmass des Knochenverlustes um schraubenförmige reine Titanimplantate mit maschinell bearbeiteter Oberfläche (Implantate des Brånemark System®) nicht durch die Progressionsrate der parodontalen Zerstörung um die verbliebenen Zähne innerhalb desselben Kiefers beeinflusst wurde.</abstract><abstract lang="es">La relación entre periodontitis y periimplantitis permanece como un asunto de debate. El presente estudio comparó, dentro de un grupo de pacientes parcialmente edéntulos (n=84 sujetos, 97 maxillares) elegidos al azar, la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de dientes e implantes durante 5 años (rango 3 a 11 años) después del primer año de remodelado óseo. Todos habían sido rehabilitados por medio de implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (sistema Brånemark®). Durante el intervalo de observación de 5 años se recogieron parámetros periodontales (pérdida de hueso marginal y de inserción, esto último únicamente para dientes) junto con datos sobre factores de confusión (tabaco, higiene oral, pérdida de dientes). Se midió la pérdida de hueso marginal por medio de radiografías de cono largo intraorales. El intervalo medio de pérdida de hueso fue significativamente (P=0.0001) más alto alrededor de los dientes (0.48±0.95 mm) que alrededor de los implantes (0.09±0.28 mm). Los datos correspondientes para el diente de peor comportamiento (0.99±1.25 mm) e implantes (0.19±0.32 mm) por sujeto mostraron la misma tendencia. Ni la pérdida de inserción o de hueso alrededor de los dientes se correlacionó con la pérdida de hueso marginal alrededor de los implantes. Este estudio indica que el índice de pérdida de hueso alrededor de los implantes con forma de tornillo de c.p. titanio con una superficie pulida (implantes del sistema Brånemark no fue influida por el indice de progresión de la destrucción periodontal alrededor de los dientes remanentes dentro del mismo maxilar.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>periodontal attachment loss</topic><topic>bone loss</topic><topic>implants</topic><topic>peri‐implantitis</topic><topic>periodontitis</topic><topic>plaque</topic><topic>smoking</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>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>589</start><end>594</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-VD5CHQGN-0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120606.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR120606</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/62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67/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 003026 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003026 | 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:62185A1B3832E5F9C3DA1B786301B83E2797BD67
|texte= Peri‐implant health around screw‐shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |