Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists
Identifieur interne : 003161 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003160; suivant : 003162Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists
Auteurs : Rj Sambrook ; Rb Judge ; Ma AbuzaarSource :
- Australian Dental Journal [ 0045-0421 ] ; 2012-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Abutment screw cavittm, Accessory screws, Aust dent, Australian prosthodontists, Biologic complications, Cement, Cement retention, Clinical practices, Complication rates, Crosspinned isrs, Current practices, Gasket, Gasket placement, Gasket type, Gasket types, Gingival recession, Implant, Implant restorations, Implantsupported prostheses, Inner surface, Isrs, Malodour, Maxillofac, Multiple answers, Multiple parts, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral maxillofac surg, Percentage response, Plaque control, Prosthesis, Prosthodontist, Queensland prosthodontists, Ranking cement, Regional differences, Restoration, Retention, Retention choice, Retention type, Retrievability, Screw retention, Seal crown, Single crowns, Single implant, Single implants, Single isrs, State level, Stula formation, Systematic review, Technical complications, Void space.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Abutment screw cavittm, Accessory screws, Aust dent, Australian prosthodontists, Biologic complications, Cement, Cement retention, Clinical practices, Complication rates, Crosspinned isrs, Current practices, Gasket, Gasket placement, Gasket type, Gasket types, Gingival recession, Implant, Implant restorations, Implantsupported prostheses, Inner surface, Isrs, Malodour, Maxillofac, Multiple answers, Multiple parts, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral maxillofac surg, Percentage response, Plaque control, Prosthesis, Prosthodontist, Queensland prosthodontists, Ranking cement, Regional differences, Restoration, Retention, Retention choice, Retention type, Retrievability, Screw retention, Seal crown, Single crowns, Single implant, Single implants, Single isrs, State level, Stula formation, Systematic review, Technical complications, Void space.
Abstract
Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title><author><name sortKey="Sambrook, Rj" sort="Sambrook, Rj" uniqKey="Sambrook R" first="Rj" last="Sambrook">Rj Sambrook</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Judge, Rb" sort="Judge, Rb" uniqKey="Judge R" first="Rb" last="Judge">Rb Judge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Abuzaar, Ma" sort="Abuzaar, Ma" uniqKey="Abuzaar M" first="Ma" last="Abuzaar">Ma Abuzaar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003161</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003161</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title><author><name sortKey="Sambrook, Rj" sort="Sambrook, Rj" uniqKey="Sambrook R" first="Rj" last="Sambrook">Rj Sambrook</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Judge, Rb" sort="Judge, Rb" uniqKey="Judge R" first="Rb" last="Judge">Rb Judge</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Abuzaar, Ma" sort="Abuzaar, Ma" uniqKey="Abuzaar M" first="Ma" last="Abuzaar">Ma Abuzaar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Australian Dental Journal</title><title level="j" type="alt">AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL</title><idno type="ISSN">0045-0421</idno><idno type="eISSN">1834-7819</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">57</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="409">409</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="414">414</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-12">2012-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0045-0421</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0045-0421</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Abutment screw cavittm</term><term>Accessory screws</term><term>Aust dent</term><term>Australian prosthodontists</term><term>Biologic complications</term><term>Cement</term><term>Cement retention</term><term>Clinical practices</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Crosspinned isrs</term><term>Current practices</term><term>Gasket</term><term>Gasket placement</term><term>Gasket type</term><term>Gasket types</term><term>Gingival recession</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant restorations</term><term>Implantsupported prostheses</term><term>Inner surface</term><term>Isrs</term><term>Malodour</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Multiple answers</term><term>Multiple parts</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Percentage response</term><term>Plaque control</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontist</term><term>Queensland prosthodontists</term><term>Ranking cement</term><term>Regional differences</term><term>Restoration</term><term>Retention</term><term>Retention choice</term><term>Retention type</term><term>Retrievability</term><term>Screw retention</term><term>Seal crown</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single implant</term><term>Single implants</term><term>Single isrs</term><term>State level</term><term>Stula formation</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Void space</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Abutment screw cavittm</term><term>Accessory screws</term><term>Aust dent</term><term>Australian prosthodontists</term><term>Biologic complications</term><term>Cement</term><term>Cement retention</term><term>Clinical practices</term><term>Complication rates</term><term>Crosspinned isrs</term><term>Current practices</term><term>Gasket</term><term>Gasket placement</term><term>Gasket type</term><term>Gasket types</term><term>Gingival recession</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant restorations</term><term>Implantsupported prostheses</term><term>Inner surface</term><term>Isrs</term><term>Malodour</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Multiple answers</term><term>Multiple parts</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Percentage response</term><term>Plaque control</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontist</term><term>Queensland prosthodontists</term><term>Ranking cement</term><term>Regional differences</term><term>Restoration</term><term>Retention</term><term>Retention choice</term><term>Retention type</term><term>Retrievability</term><term>Screw retention</term><term>Seal crown</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Single implant</term><term>Single implants</term><term>Single isrs</term><term>State level</term><term>Stula formation</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Void space</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthodontist</json:string><json:string>isrs</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>single implants</json:string><json:string>australian prosthodontists</json:string><json:string>retrievability</json:string><json:string>malodour</json:string><json:string>cement retention</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>single implant</json:string><json:string>abutment screw</json:string><json:string>retention type</json:string><json:string>gasket placement</json:string><json:string>gasket</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>percentage response</json:string><json:string>regional differences</json:string><json:string>screw retention</json:string><json:string>systematic review</json:string><json:string>crosspinned isrs</json:string><json:string>inner surface</json:string><json:string>single isrs</json:string><json:string>seal crown</json:string><json:string>technical complications</json:string><json:string>clinical practices</json:string><json:string>retention choice</json:string><json:string>retention</json:string><json:string>accessory screws</json:string><json:string>biologic complications</json:string><json:string>multiple answers</json:string><json:string>void space</json:string><json:string>complication rates</json:string><json:string>plaque control</json:string><json:string>gasket types</json:string><json:string>gasket type</json:string><json:string>abutment screw cavittm</json:string><json:string>queensland prosthodontists</json:string><json:string>ranking cement</json:string><json:string>current practices</json:string><json:string>state level</json:string><json:string>single crowns</json:string><json:string>multiple parts</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac surg</json:string><json:string>gingival recession</json:string><json:string>stula formation</json:string><json:string>implantsupported prostheses</json:string><json:string>aust dent</json:string><json:string>implant restorations</json:string><json:string>restoration</json:string><json:string>cement</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>RJ Sambrook</name><affiliations><json:string>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>RB Judge</name><affiliations><json:string>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>MA Abuzaar</name><affiliations><json:string>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Cross‐pin</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>gasket</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant supported restoration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>retrievability</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>ADJ1731</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-WF1B1RMX-X</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>shortCommunication</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.846</score><pdfWordCount>3054</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>21106</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 788.031 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>66</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>477</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title><pmid><json:string>23186563</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>brief-communication</json:string></genre><host><title>Australian Dental Journal</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1834-7819</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0045-0421</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1834-7819</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>ADJ</json:string></publisherId><volume>57</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>409</first><last>414</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>ADRF RESEARCH REPORT</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string><json:string>from July 2009 to January 2010</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>ChesebroughPonds USA Co.</json:string><json:string>University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee</json:string><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>Australian and New Zealand Academy of Prosthodontists</json:string><json:string>Australian Dental Research Foundation</json:string><json:string>University of Melbourne Postgraduate Research Fund</json:string><json:string>University of Melbourne</json:string><json:string>Microsoft Corporation</json:string><json:string>Across Australia, DTF</json:string><json:string>PGRF</json:string><json:string>ADRF</json:string><json:string>Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co.</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>VIC Cement</json:string><json:string>Never Occurrence</json:string><json:string>Never Retrievability</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Australia</json:string><json:string>Wales</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Sambrook et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-WF1B1RMX-X</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x</json:string></doi><id>649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2012 Australian Dental Association</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-12"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="brief-communication" source="shortCommunication" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-S9SX2MFS-0">brief-communication</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="brief-communication"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title><title level="a" type="short">Use of cross‐pin retained restorations</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">RJ</forename><surname>Sambrook</surname></persName><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">RB</forename><surname>Judge</surname></persName><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">MA</forename><surname>Abuzaar</surname></persName><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-WF1B1RMX-X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x</idno><idno type="unit">ADJ1731</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:ADJ.ADJ1731.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Australian Dental Journal</title><title level="j" type="alt">AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL</title><idno type="pISSN">0045-0421</idno><idno type="eISSN">1834-7819</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1834-7819</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/adj.2012.57.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">ADJ</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">57</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="409">409</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="414">414</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background: </hi> Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Methods: </hi> A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open‐ and closed‐format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross‐pin retained restoration.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> Seventy‐seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that cross‐pinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross‐pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty‐eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross‐pinned retained restoration for a single ISR.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions: </hi> Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross‐pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">Cross‐pin</term><term xml:id="k2">gasket</term><term xml:id="k3">implant supported restoration</term><term xml:id="k4">retrievability</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>ADRF RESEARCH REPORTS</term></keywords><keywords rend="articleCategory"><term>ADRF RESEARCH REPORT</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/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1834-7819</doi><issn type="print">0045-0421</issn><issn type="electronic">1834-7819</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="ADJ"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL">Australian Dental Journal</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12104"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/adj.2012.57.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="57">57</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-12">December 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="shortCommunication" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="ADJ1731"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ADRF RESEARCH REPORTS</title><title type="articleCategory">ADRF RESEARCH REPORT</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2012 Australian Dental Association</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.9 mode:FullText" date="2012-11-22"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2012-11-22" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event agent="SPS" date="2012-11-22" type="xmlCorrected"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2012-09-11"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-11-27"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2012-09-11"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2013-12-31"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.7 mode:FullText" date="2015-03-24"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="409">409</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="414">414</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><i>Dr Raelene Sambrook</i>
<i>Melbourne Dental School</i>
<i>The University of Melbourne</i>
<i>720 Swanston Street</i>
<i>Carlton VIC 3053</i>
<i>Email:</i><email>raelenes@live.com</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:ADJ.ADJ1731.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>(Accepted for publication 19 February 2012.)</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="7"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title><title type="shortAuthors">RJ Sambrook <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">Use of cross‐pin retained restorations</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>RJ</givenNames><familyName>Sambrook</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>RB</givenNames><familyName>Judge</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>MA</givenNames><familyName>Abuzaar</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">Cross‐pin</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">gasket</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">implant supported restoration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">retrievability</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Background: </b> Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.</p><p><b>Methods: </b> A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open‐ and closed‐format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross‐pin retained restoration.</p><p><b>Results: </b> Seventy‐seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that cross‐pinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross‐pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty‐eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross‐pinned retained restoration for a single ISR.</p><p><b>Conclusions: </b> Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross‐pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Use of cross‐pin retained restorations</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">RJ</namePart><namePart type="family">Sambrook</namePart><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">RB</namePart><namePart type="family">Judge</namePart><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">MA</namePart><namePart type="family">Abuzaar</namePart><affiliation>Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="brief-communication" displayLabel="shortCommunication" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-S9SX2MFS-0">brief-communication</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-12</dateIssued><edition>(Accepted for publication 19 February 2012.)</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">7</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated.</abstract><abstract>Methods: A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open‐ and closed‐format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross‐pin retained restoration.</abstract><abstract>Results: Seventy‐seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that cross‐pinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross‐pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty‐eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross‐pinned retained restoration for a single ISR.</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross‐pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Cross‐pin</topic><topic>gasket</topic><topic>implant supported restoration</topic><topic>retrievability</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Australian Dental Journal</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><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>ADRF RESEARCH REPORT</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0045-0421</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1834-7819</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1834-7819</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">ADJ</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>57</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>409</start><end>414</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-WF1B1RMX-X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01731.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">ADJ1731</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2012 Australian Dental Association</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3/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 003161 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003161 | 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:649D11E1702FF62F3AEA2E9A94600A231CEE64F3
|texte= Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |