Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study
Identifieur interne : 003527 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003526; suivant : 003528Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study
Auteurs : Hugo De Bruyn ; Bruno Collaert ; Ulf Lindén ; Carina Johansson ; Tomas AlbrektssonSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 1999-04.
Abstract
The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, Hugo" sort="De Bruyn, Hugo" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="Hugo" last="De Bruyn">Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, Bruno" sort="Collaert, Bruno" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="Bruno" last="Collaert">Bruno Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, Ulf" sort="Linden, Ulf" uniqKey="Linden U" first="Ulf" last="Lindén">Ulf Lindén</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Johansson, Carina" sort="Johansson, Carina" uniqKey="Johansson C" first="Carina" last="Johansson">Carina Johansson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Albrektsson, Tomas" sort="Albrektsson, Tomas" uniqKey="Albrektsson T" first="Tomas" last="Albrektsson">Tomas Albrektsson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE</idno><date when="1999" year="1999">1999</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003527</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003527</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, Hugo" sort="De Bruyn, Hugo" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="Hugo" last="De Bruyn">Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, Bruno" sort="Collaert, Bruno" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="Bruno" last="Collaert">Bruno Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, Ulf" sort="Linden, Ulf" uniqKey="Linden U" first="Ulf" last="Lindén">Ulf Lindén</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Johansson, Carina" sort="Johansson, Carina" uniqKey="Johansson C" first="Carina" last="Johansson">Carina Johansson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Albrektsson, Tomas" sort="Albrektsson, Tomas" uniqKey="Albrektsson T" first="Tomas" last="Albrektsson">Tomas Albrektsson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</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">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="139">139</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="148">148</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-04">1999-04</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliations><json:string>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</json:string><json:string>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Bruno Collaert</name><affiliations><json:string>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</json:string><json:string>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ulf Lindén</name><affiliations><json:string>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Carina Johansson</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Tomas Albrektsson</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>titanium</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>osseointegration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>marginal bone loss</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthetic quality</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>complications</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR100208</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-P55DWDS3-1</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>4.702</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>555 x 779 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>221</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1456</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><pmid><json:string>10219133</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>10</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>139</first><last>148</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1999</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-P55DWDS3-1</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><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - anesthesie. reanimation. transfusion. therapie cellulaire et therapie genique</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1999</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x</json:string></doi><id>6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-04"></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">Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><title level="a" type="short">Seven‐year clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Hugo</forename><surname>De Bruyn</surname></persName><affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Bruno</forename><surname>Collaert</surname></persName><affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Ulf</forename><surname>Lindén</surname></persName><affiliation>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Carina</forename><surname>Johansson</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Tomas</forename><surname>Albrektsson</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-P55DWDS3-1</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR100208</idno><idno type="supplier"></idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR100208.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.1999.10.issue-2</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="139">139</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="148">148</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-04"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">titanium</term><term xml:id="k3">osseointegration</term><term xml:id="k4">marginal bone loss</term><term xml:id="k5">prosthetic quality</term><term xml:id="k6">complications</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><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="04002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.1999.10.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="10">10</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1999-04">April 1999</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0013900" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR100208"></id><id type="supplier" value=""></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2001-12-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2001-12-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" 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="139">139</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="148">148</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Hugo De Bruyn, Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Basilieklaan 373/14 1081 Brussels, Belgium</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR100208.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 10 September 1998</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title><title type="shortAuthors">De Bruyn et al.</title><title type="short">Seven‐year clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Hugo</givenNames><familyName>De Bruyn</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Bruno</givenNames><familyName>Collaert</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Ulf</givenNames><familyName>Lindén</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Carina</givenNames><familyName>Johansson</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Tomas</givenNames><familyName>Albrektsson</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">titanium</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">osseointegration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">marginal bone loss</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">prosthetic quality</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">complications</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Seven‐year clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hugo</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</affiliation><affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bruno</namePart><namePart type="family">Collaert</namePart><affiliation>Center Periodontology & lmplantology Brussels, Belgium;</affiliation><affiliation>Department Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ulf</namePart><namePart type="family">Lindén</namePart><affiliation>Department Prosthodontics. Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Carina</namePart><namePart type="family">Johansson</namePart><affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Tomas</namePart><namePart type="family">Albrektsson</namePart><affiliation>Biomaterials/Handicap Research, University of Göteborg, Sweden</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">1999-04</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 10 September 1998</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1999</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The clinical results of 85 Screw Vent implants are described with respect to 7‐year success. including radiographically detectable bone loss. survival and prosthetic quality. The l‐year results of the same material have been reported previously (De Bruyn et al. 1992). Implants were considered as successful when they were meeting with the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. From the 85 implants originally installed, 16 failed during the 7‐year interval (18.8%) 6 were unaccounted for (7%), 21 (24.7%) did not meet the success criteria yet survived and 42 implants (49.4%) were successful. The success rate was 65.2% for the mandibular and 43.5% for the maxillary implants. Implant failures were irrespective of implant length, smoking habits. prosthetic quality or oral hygiene level. From 24 patients with a corresponding number of 60 implants, radiographs were available for bone loss analysis. The mean bone loss after 7‐years was 2.92 mm (range −0.5 to 6.3); 18 out of 60 examined implants (30%) showed unacceptable radiological bone loss beyond the critical value of 2.7 mm. Implant material analysis and histomorphometric analysis of a retrieved implant are discussed. In the present clinical study, the Screw Vent implant system does not meet the success criteria proposed by the European Academy for Periodontology. The on‐going bone loss increases the risk for future implant failures and peri‐implant disease.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>titanium</topic><topic>osseointegration</topic><topic>marginal bone loss</topic><topic>prosthetic quality</topic><topic>complications</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>1999</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>10</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>139</start><end>148</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-P55DWDS3-1</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100208.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR100208</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/6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE/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 003527 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003527 | 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:6BCA97C3EEE85EEA4C4CE640BD418B67CBF234EE
|texte= Clinical outcome of Screw Vent implants. A 7‐year prospective follow‐up study
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |