An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces
Identifieur interne : 003781 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003780; suivant : 003782An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces
Auteurs : Jan Gottlow ; Sargon Barkarmo ; Lars SennerbySource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2012-05.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Anodic oxidation, Bone apposition, Bone formation, Bone integration, Bone tissue, Bone tissue responses, Cancellous bone, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical studies, Clinical study, Days hsba, Dent, Dental implants, Different geometries, Early loading, Edentulous maxilla, Error bars, Experimental comparison, Experimental studies, Experimental study, Former implant, Gothenburg, Gothenburg university, Healing periods, Higher shear strength, Higher values, Histological examination, Histology, Hsba, Hsba implant, Hsba implants, Hydrophilic properties, Immediate occlusal loading, Immunohistochemical study, Implant, Implant design, Implant site, Implant sites, Implant stability, Implant surface, Implant type, Implant types, Institut straumann, Lateral stability, Light micrographs, Maxillary bone, More bics, Morphometric measurements, Multivariate analysis, Nobel biocare, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral maxillofac surg, Oxidized, Oxidized surface, Oxidized titanium implants, Posterior mandible, Present authors, Present study, Primary stability, Prospective study, Rabbit tibia, Relat, Removal torque, Removal torque values, Resonance frequency analysis, Sahlgrenska academy, Sargon barkarmo, Sennerby, Shear force, Shear strength, Similar values, Slactive, Surface area, Surface characteristics, Surface roughness, Surface technologies, Surface topography, Surgical sciences, System implants, Tibia, Titanium, Titanium implants.
- Teeft :
- Anodic oxidation, Bone apposition, Bone formation, Bone integration, Bone tissue, Bone tissue responses, Cancellous bone, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical studies, Clinical study, Days hsba, Dent, Dental implants, Different geometries, Early loading, Edentulous maxilla, Error bars, Experimental comparison, Experimental studies, Experimental study, Former implant, Gothenburg, Gothenburg university, Healing periods, Higher shear strength, Higher values, Histological examination, Histology, Hsba, Hsba implant, Hsba implants, Hydrophilic properties, Immediate occlusal loading, Immunohistochemical study, Implant, Implant design, Implant site, Implant sites, Implant stability, Implant surface, Implant type, Implant types, Institut straumann, Lateral stability, Light micrographs, Maxillary bone, More bics, Morphometric measurements, Multivariate analysis, Nobel biocare, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral maxillofac surg, Oxidized, Oxidized surface, Oxidized titanium implants, Posterior mandible, Present authors, Present study, Primary stability, Prospective study, Rabbit tibia, Relat, Removal torque, Removal torque values, Resonance frequency analysis, Sahlgrenska academy, Sargon barkarmo, Sennerby, Shear force, Shear strength, Similar values, Slactive, Surface area, Surface characteristics, Surface roughness, Surface technologies, Surface topography, Surgical sciences, System implants, Tibia, Titanium, Titanium implants.
Abstract
Background: Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title><author><name sortKey="Gottlow, Jan" sort="Gottlow, Jan" uniqKey="Gottlow J" first="Jan" last="Gottlow">Jan Gottlow</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jan.gottlow@telia.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barkarmo, Sargon" sort="Barkarmo, Sargon" uniqKey="Barkarmo S" first="Sargon" last="Barkarmo">Sargon Barkarmo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sennerby, Lars" sort="Sennerby, Lars" uniqKey="Sennerby L" first="Lars" last="Sennerby">Lars Sennerby</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003781</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003781</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title><author><name sortKey="Gottlow, Jan" sort="Gottlow, Jan" uniqKey="Gottlow J" first="Jan" last="Gottlow">Jan Gottlow</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jan.gottlow@telia.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barkarmo, Sargon" sort="Barkarmo, Sargon" uniqKey="Barkarmo S" first="Sargon" last="Barkarmo">Sargon Barkarmo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sennerby, Lars" sort="Sennerby, Lars" uniqKey="Sennerby L" first="Lars" last="Sennerby">Lars Sennerby</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e204">e204</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e212">e212</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05">2012-05</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Anodic oxidation</term><term>Bone apposition</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone integration</term><term>Bone tissue</term><term>Bone tissue responses</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical studies</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Days hsba</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Different geometries</term><term>Early loading</term><term>Edentulous maxilla</term><term>Error bars</term><term>Experimental comparison</term><term>Experimental studies</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Former implant</term><term>Gothenburg</term><term>Gothenburg university</term><term>Healing periods</term><term>Higher shear strength</term><term>Higher values</term><term>Histological examination</term><term>Histology</term><term>Hsba</term><term>Hsba implant</term><term>Hsba implants</term><term>Hydrophilic properties</term><term>Immediate occlusal loading</term><term>Immunohistochemical study</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant site</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant stability</term><term>Implant surface</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implant types</term><term>Institut straumann</term><term>Lateral stability</term><term>Light micrographs</term><term>Maxillary bone</term><term>More bics</term><term>Morphometric measurements</term><term>Multivariate analysis</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Oxidized</term><term>Oxidized surface</term><term>Oxidized titanium implants</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Present authors</term><term>Present study</term><term>Primary stability</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Rabbit tibia</term><term>Relat</term><term>Removal torque</term><term>Removal torque values</term><term>Resonance frequency analysis</term><term>Sahlgrenska academy</term><term>Sargon barkarmo</term><term>Sennerby</term><term>Shear force</term><term>Shear strength</term><term>Similar values</term><term>Slactive</term><term>Surface area</term><term>Surface characteristics</term><term>Surface roughness</term><term>Surface technologies</term><term>Surface topography</term><term>Surgical sciences</term><term>System implants</term><term>Tibia</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Anodic oxidation</term><term>Bone apposition</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone integration</term><term>Bone tissue</term><term>Bone tissue responses</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical studies</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Days hsba</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Different geometries</term><term>Early loading</term><term>Edentulous maxilla</term><term>Error bars</term><term>Experimental comparison</term><term>Experimental studies</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Former implant</term><term>Gothenburg</term><term>Gothenburg university</term><term>Healing periods</term><term>Higher shear strength</term><term>Higher values</term><term>Histological examination</term><term>Histology</term><term>Hsba</term><term>Hsba implant</term><term>Hsba implants</term><term>Hydrophilic properties</term><term>Immediate occlusal loading</term><term>Immunohistochemical study</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant site</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant stability</term><term>Implant surface</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implant types</term><term>Institut straumann</term><term>Lateral stability</term><term>Light micrographs</term><term>Maxillary bone</term><term>More bics</term><term>Morphometric measurements</term><term>Multivariate analysis</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral maxillofac surg</term><term>Oxidized</term><term>Oxidized surface</term><term>Oxidized titanium implants</term><term>Posterior mandible</term><term>Present authors</term><term>Present study</term><term>Primary stability</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Rabbit tibia</term><term>Relat</term><term>Removal torque</term><term>Removal torque values</term><term>Resonance frequency analysis</term><term>Sahlgrenska academy</term><term>Sargon barkarmo</term><term>Sennerby</term><term>Shear force</term><term>Shear strength</term><term>Similar values</term><term>Slactive</term><term>Surface area</term><term>Surface characteristics</term><term>Surface roughness</term><term>Surface technologies</term><term>Surface topography</term><term>Surgical sciences</term><term>System implants</term><term>Tibia</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium implants</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>hsba</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>hsba implants</json:string><json:string>gothenburg</json:string><json:string>tibia</json:string><json:string>hsba implant</json:string><json:string>slactive</json:string><json:string>relat</json:string><json:string>oxidized</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>sennerby</json:string><json:string>implant types</json:string><json:string>surface area</json:string><json:string>implant stability</json:string><json:string>bone formation</json:string><json:string>surface topography</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>experimental comparison</json:string><json:string>bone tissue responses</json:string><json:string>implant surface</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>gothenburg university</json:string><json:string>removal torque</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>surface characteristics</json:string><json:string>different geometries</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>histology</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>implant type</json:string><json:string>removal torque values</json:string><json:string>immediate occlusal loading</json:string><json:string>more bics</json:string><json:string>higher shear strength</json:string><json:string>lateral stability</json:string><json:string>morphometric measurements</json:string><json:string>oxidized surface</json:string><json:string>bone integration</json:string><json:string>surface technologies</json:string><json:string>present authors</json:string><json:string>sahlgrenska academy</json:string><json:string>early loading</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>implant design</json:string><json:string>similar values</json:string><json:string>primary stability</json:string><json:string>light micrographs</json:string><json:string>histological examination</json:string><json:string>surgical sciences</json:string><json:string>shear force</json:string><json:string>higher values</json:string><json:string>days hsba</json:string><json:string>sargon barkarmo</json:string><json:string>surface roughness</json:string><json:string>multivariate analysis</json:string><json:string>error bars</json:string><json:string>implant site</json:string><json:string>cancellous bone</json:string><json:string>healing periods</json:string><json:string>maxillary bone</json:string><json:string>clinical studies</json:string><json:string>hydrophilic properties</json:string><json:string>anodic oxidation</json:string><json:string>former implant</json:string><json:string>institut straumann</json:string><json:string>rabbit tibia</json:string><json:string>bone apposition</json:string><json:string>resonance frequency analysis</json:string><json:string>immunohistochemical study</json:string><json:string>experimental study</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>clinical study</json:string><json:string>edentulous maxilla</json:string><json:string>oxidized titanium implants</json:string><json:string>shear strength</json:string><json:string>posterior mandible</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac surg</json:string><json:string>system implants</json:string><json:string>bone tissue</json:string><json:string>experimental studies</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Jan Gottlow DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</json:string><json:string>E-mail: jan.gottlow@telia.com</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Sargon Barkarmo DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Lars Sennerby DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>anodic oxidation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>histology</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>hydrophilicity</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>removal torque</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>resonance frequency analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>titanium</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID439</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-L5RXNQKV-J</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.994</score><pdfWordCount>4538</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28333</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>38</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>286</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>7</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title><pmid><json:string>22487460</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>14</volume><pages><first>e204</first><last>e212</last><total>9</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden Reprint</json:string><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Institute Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Visiopharm</json:string><json:string>Department of Epidemiology and Public Health</json:string><json:string>Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, PO Box</json:string><json:string>SAS Institute Inc</json:string><json:string>Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Studies</json:string><json:string>Jan Gottlow</json:string><json:string>Lars Sennerby</json:string><json:string>L. Grize</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Friedrichsdorf</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Basel</json:string><json:string>Denmark</json:string><json:string>Stockholm</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Fischer et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-L5RXNQKV-J</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><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x</json:string></doi><id>70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-05"></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">An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title><title level="a" type="short">An Experimental Comparison of Two Dental Implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Jan</forename><surname>Gottlow</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Jan Gottlow, Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, PO Box 412, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; e‐mail: jan.gottlow@telia.com</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Sargon</forename><surname>Barkarmo</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Lars</forename><surname>Sennerby</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-L5RXNQKV-J</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID439</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID439.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="sub">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="e204">e204</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="e212">e212</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-05"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background:</hi> Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Purpose:</hi> The aim of the present experimental investigation was to compare the bone tissue responses and implant stability between two commonly used dental implants representing different geometries and surface characteristics.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and Methods:</hi> A total of 90 dental implants (4.3 mm in diameter, 10 mm long) with an oxidized surface (Replace Select Tapered, TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) (OX) and 90 implants (4.1 mm in diameter, 10 mm total length) with a hydrophilic sand‐blasted and acid etched surface (Standard Plus, SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) (HSBA) were placed in the distal femur (<hi rend="italic">n</hi> = 1) and tibia (<hi rend="italic">n</hi> = 2) of 30 rabbits. The implants were analyzed with implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements, removal torque (RTQ) and histomorphometry (bone–implant contact, BIC) after 10 days, 3, and 6 weeks. Moreover, RTQ values were corrected for differences in surface area by calculating the shear strength for each implant.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> RTQ and ISQ measurements showed an increase with time for both implant types. A significantly higher RTQ value was observed for the HSBA implant at 3 weeks (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> = .05). A lower ISQ value was seen for HSBA than for OX implants at placement in the tibia (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < 0.001). HSBA implants showed higher shear strength values than OX implants after 3 weeks (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < .001), and 6 weeks (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < .01). The morphometric measurements showed significantly higher BIC for HSBA implants after 10 days (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < .01), similar values after 3 weeks and significantly higher BIC for OX implants after 6 weeks (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < .001).</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions:</hi> Both HSBA and OX implants were well integrated in bone and showed firm and increased stability from placement to after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed more BIC after 10 days and the OX implant more BIC after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed significantly higher shear strength after 3 and 6 weeks and higher RTQ values after 3 weeks than the OX implant. The results may be due to differences in surface roughness and hydrophilic properties.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">anodic oxidation</term><term xml:id="k2">dental implant</term><term xml:id="k3">histology</term><term xml:id="k4">hydrophilicity</term><term xml:id="k5">removal torque</term><term xml:id="k6">resonance frequency analysis</term><term xml:id="k7">titanium</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</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/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/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)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="05001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-s1</doi><titleGroup><title type="specialIssueTitle">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="14">14</numbering><numbering type="supplement">s1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-05">May 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="24" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID439"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.1.6 mode:FullText" date="2012-08-21"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2012-04-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-05-10"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2012-04-05"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.3.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-02-25"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">e204</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">e212</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Jan Gottlow, Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, PO Box 412, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; e‐mail: <email>jan.gottlow@telia.com</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID439.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="6"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="33"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5149"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2012</title><title type="short">An Experimental Comparison of Two Dental Implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Jan</givenNames><familyName>Gottlow</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Sargon</givenNames><familyName>Barkarmo</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Lars</givenNames><familyName>Sennerby</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">anodic oxidation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">histology</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">hydrophilicity</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">removal torque</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">resonance frequency analysis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k7">titanium</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Background:</b> Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.</p><p><b>Purpose:</b> The aim of the present experimental investigation was to compare the bone tissue responses and implant stability between two commonly used dental implants representing different geometries and surface characteristics.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> A total of 90 dental implants (4.3 mm in diameter, 10 mm long) with an oxidized surface (Replace Select Tapered, TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) (OX) and 90 implants (4.1 mm in diameter, 10 mm total length) with a hydrophilic sand‐blasted and acid etched surface (Standard Plus, SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) (HSBA) were placed in the distal femur (<i>n</i> = 1) and tibia (<i>n</i> = 2) of 30 rabbits. The implants were analyzed with implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements, removal torque (RTQ) and histomorphometry (bone–implant contact, BIC) after 10 days, 3, and 6 weeks. Moreover, RTQ values were corrected for differences in surface area by calculating the shear strength for each implant.</p><p><b>Results:</b> RTQ and ISQ measurements showed an increase with time for both implant types. A significantly higher RTQ value was observed for the HSBA implant at 3 weeks (<i>p</i> = .05). A lower ISQ value was seen for HSBA than for OX implants at placement in the tibia (<i>p</i> < 0.001). HSBA implants showed higher shear strength values than OX implants after 3 weeks (<i>p</i> < .001), and 6 weeks (<i>p</i> < .01). The morphometric measurements showed significantly higher BIC for HSBA implants after 10 days (<i>p</i> < .01), similar values after 3 weeks and significantly higher BIC for OX implants after 6 weeks (<i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Both HSBA and OX implants were well integrated in bone and showed firm and increased stability from placement to after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed more BIC after 10 days and the OX implant more BIC after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed significantly higher shear strength after 3 and 6 weeks and higher RTQ values after 3 weeks than the OX implant. The results may be due to differences in surface roughness and hydrophilic properties.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><p>[Correction statement added after online publication 17 August 2012: author name Sargon Barkamo corrected to Sargon Barkarmo.]</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>An Experimental Comparison of Two Dental Implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jan</namePart><namePart type="family">Gottlow</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: jan.gottlow@telia.com</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Sargon</namePart><namePart type="family">Barkarmo</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lars</namePart><namePart type="family">Sennerby</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, 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>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-05</dateIssued><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">6</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">33</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5149</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.</abstract><abstract>Purpose: The aim of the present experimental investigation was to compare the bone tissue responses and implant stability between two commonly used dental implants representing different geometries and surface characteristics.</abstract><abstract>Materials and Methods: A total of 90 dental implants (4.3 mm in diameter, 10 mm long) with an oxidized surface (Replace Select Tapered, TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) (OX) and 90 implants (4.1 mm in diameter, 10 mm total length) with a hydrophilic sand‐blasted and acid etched surface (Standard Plus, SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) (HSBA) were placed in the distal femur (n = 1) and tibia (n = 2) of 30 rabbits. The implants were analyzed with implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements, removal torque (RTQ) and histomorphometry (bone–implant contact, BIC) after 10 days, 3, and 6 weeks. Moreover, RTQ values were corrected for differences in surface area by calculating the shear strength for each implant.</abstract><abstract>Results: RTQ and ISQ measurements showed an increase with time for both implant types. A significantly higher RTQ value was observed for the HSBA implant at 3 weeks (p = .05). A lower ISQ value was seen for HSBA than for OX implants at placement in the tibia (p < 0.001). HSBA implants showed higher shear strength values than OX implants after 3 weeks (p < .001), and 6 weeks (p < .01). The morphometric measurements showed significantly higher BIC for HSBA implants after 10 days (p < .01), similar values after 3 weeks and significantly higher BIC for OX implants after 6 weeks (p < .001).</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: Both HSBA and OX implants were well integrated in bone and showed firm and increased stability from placement to after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed more BIC after 10 days and the OX implant more BIC after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed significantly higher shear strength after 3 and 6 weeks and higher RTQ values after 3 weeks than the OX implant. The results may be due to differences in surface roughness and hydrophilic properties.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>anodic oxidation</topic><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>histology</topic><topic>hydrophilicity</topic><topic>removal torque</topic><topic>resonance frequency analysis</topic><topic>titanium</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related 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">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="title"><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>14</number></detail><detail type="supplement"><caption>Suppl. no.</caption><number>s1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>e204</start><end>e212</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-L5RXNQKV-J</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID439</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</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/70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80/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 003781 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003781 | 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:70C31AA51BC0DBF359A4DC844E6F4178B8E24F80
|texte= An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |