Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses
Identifieur interne : 004184 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 004183; suivant : 004185Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses
Auteurs : Ann Wennerberg ; Torsten JemtSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 1999-07.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment screws, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone quality, Bone quantity, Branemark, Canine, Canine tooth, Clinical appointments, Clinical dentistry, Clinical experiences, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical survival, Complication, Cumulative survival rate, Dentistry, Edentulous, Edentulous implant patients, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Endosseous implants, First year, Fracture, Gold screws, Higher incidence, Implant, Implant components, Implant insertion, Implant treatment, Insertion, Jemt, Lekholm, Load distribution, Loose abutment, Loose implants, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Maxilla, Maxillofac, Mechanical complications, Mechanical problems, Modum branemark, More implants, More problems, Natural teeth, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Other groups, Other implant studies, Other implant treatment groups, Overall implant, Partial edentulism, Partial prostheses, Phonation, Phonation problems, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthesis survival rates, Prosthet dent, Resin teeth, Retrospective study, Second year, Significant difference, Smoking habits, Stomatognathic problems, Surgical sciences, Third year, Titanium frameworks, Unilateral situations, Year year year year year.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment screws, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone quality, Bone quantity, Branemark, Canine, Canine tooth, Clinical appointments, Clinical dentistry, Clinical experiences, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical survival, Complication, Cumulative survival rate, Dentistry, Edentulous, Edentulous implant patients, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Endosseous implants, First year, Fracture, Gold screws, Higher incidence, Implant, Implant components, Implant insertion, Implant treatment, Insertion, Jemt, Lekholm, Load distribution, Loose abutment, Loose implants, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Maxilla, Maxillofac, Mechanical complications, Mechanical problems, Modum branemark, More implants, More problems, Natural teeth, Oral maxillofac implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Other groups, Other implant studies, Other implant treatment groups, Overall implant, Partial edentulism, Partial prostheses, Phonation, Phonation problems, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthesis survival rates, Prosthet dent, Resin teeth, Retrospective study, Second year, Significant difference, Smoking habits, Stomatognathic problems, Surgical sciences, Third year, Titanium frameworks, Unilateral situations, Year year year year year.
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations. Purpose: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment. Materials and Methods: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols. Results: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p <.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p<.01). Conclusions: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Wennerberg, Ann" sort="Wennerberg, Ann" uniqKey="Wennerberg A" first="Ann" last="Wennerberg">Ann Wennerberg</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jemt, Torsten" sort="Jemt, Torsten" uniqKey="Jemt T" first="Torsten" last="Jemt">Torsten Jemt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8</idno><date when="1999" year="1999">1999</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">004184</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">004184</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Wennerberg, Ann" sort="Wennerberg, Ann" uniqKey="Wennerberg A" first="Ann" last="Wennerberg">Ann Wennerberg</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jemt, Torsten" sort="Jemt, Torsten" uniqKey="Jemt T" first="Torsten" last="Jemt">Torsten Jemt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, 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="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="49">49</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="56">56</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-07">1999-07</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>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Bone quantity</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Canine</term><term>Canine tooth</term><term>Clinical appointments</term><term>Clinical dentistry</term><term>Clinical experiences</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical survival</term><term>Complication</term><term>Cumulative survival rate</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous implant patients</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>First year</term><term>Fracture</term><term>Gold screws</term><term>Higher incidence</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Jemt</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Loose abutment</term><term>Loose implants</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Mechanical complications</term><term>Mechanical problems</term><term>Modum branemark</term><term>More implants</term><term>More problems</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other groups</term><term>Other implant studies</term><term>Other implant treatment groups</term><term>Overall implant</term><term>Partial edentulism</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Phonation</term><term>Phonation problems</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthesis survival rates</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Resin teeth</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Second year</term><term>Significant difference</term><term>Smoking habits</term><term>Stomatognathic problems</term><term>Surgical sciences</term><term>Third year</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Unilateral situations</term><term>Year year year year year</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Bone quantity</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Canine</term><term>Canine tooth</term><term>Clinical appointments</term><term>Clinical dentistry</term><term>Clinical experiences</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical survival</term><term>Complication</term><term>Cumulative survival rate</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous implant patients</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>First year</term><term>Fracture</term><term>Gold screws</term><term>Higher incidence</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant insertion</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Jemt</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Load distribution</term><term>Loose abutment</term><term>Loose implants</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Mechanical complications</term><term>Mechanical problems</term><term>Modum branemark</term><term>More implants</term><term>More problems</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other groups</term><term>Other implant studies</term><term>Other implant treatment groups</term><term>Overall implant</term><term>Partial edentulism</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Phonation</term><term>Phonation problems</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthesis survival rates</term><term>Prosthet dent</term><term>Resin teeth</term><term>Retrospective study</term><term>Second year</term><term>Significant difference</term><term>Smoking habits</term><term>Stomatognathic problems</term><term>Surgical sciences</term><term>Third year</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Unilateral situations</term><term>Year year year year year</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Background: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations. Purpose: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment. Materials and Methods: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols. Results: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p <.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p<.01). Conclusions: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>lekholm</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>implant treatment</json:string><json:string>jemt</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>canine</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>phonation</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>insertion</json:string><json:string>fracture</json:string><json:string>mechanical problems</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>abutment screws</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>implant components</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>prosthesis insertion</json:string><json:string>edentulous jaws</json:string><json:string>bone quality</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>clinical dentistry</json:string><json:string>prosthet dent</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>edentulous implant patients</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>retrospective study</json:string><json:string>canine tooth</json:string><json:string>more implants</json:string><json:string>other implant studies</json:string><json:string>other groups</json:string><json:string>mechanical complications</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>phonation problems</json:string><json:string>loose abutment</json:string><json:string>bone quantity</json:string><json:string>partial prostheses</json:string><json:string>gold screws</json:string><json:string>cumulative survival rate</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>higher incidence</json:string><json:string>clinical appointments</json:string><json:string>loose implants</json:string><json:string>first year</json:string><json:string>second year</json:string><json:string>third year</json:string><json:string>resin teeth</json:string><json:string>implant insertion</json:string><json:string>stomatognathic problems</json:string><json:string>year year year year year</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>modum branemark</json:string><json:string>significant difference</json:string><json:string>titanium frameworks</json:string><json:string>load distribution</json:string><json:string>prosthesis survival rates</json:string><json:string>surgical sciences</json:string><json:string>clinical survival</json:string><json:string>other implant treatment groups</json:string><json:string>unilateral situations</json:string><json:string>more problems</json:string><json:string>partial edentulism</json:string><json:string>overall implant</json:string><json:string>clinical experiences</json:string><json:string>endosseous implants</json:string><json:string>smoking habits</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Ann Wennerberg DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.</json:string><json:string>Correspondence address: Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Torsten Jemt DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>complications</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>cumultive survival rate (CSR)</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fixed prosthesis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>partially edentulous patients</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID49</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-6BGLTRCC-X</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations. Purpose: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment. Materials and Methods: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols. Results: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p >.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p>.01). Conclusions: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.919</score><pdfWordCount>3931</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>24727</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>576 x 792 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>249</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1769</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title><pmid><json:string>11359311</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>1</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>49</first><last>56</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1999</json:string><json:string>between December 1983 and December 1992</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Prosthetic</json:string><json:string>University of Goteborg</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University</json:string><json:string>Decker Inc.</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Ann Wennerberg</json:string><json:string>Characteristics</json:string><json:string>Kennedy Class</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-6BGLTRCC-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><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></inist></categories><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1999</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x</json:string></doi><id>84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-07"></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">Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Ann</forename><surname>Wennerberg</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Torsten</forename><surname>Jemt</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6BGLTRCC-X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID49</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID49.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</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.1999.1.issue-1</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="49">49</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="56">56</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1999-07"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p>
<hi rend="italic">Background</hi>: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Purpose</hi>: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Materials and Methods</hi>: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Results</hi>: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p <.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p<.01).</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Conclusions</hi>: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">complications</term><term xml:id="k2">cumultive survival rate (CSR)</term><term xml:id="k3">fixed prosthesis</term><term xml:id="k4">implants</term><term xml:id="k5">partially edentulous patients</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/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/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="07001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.1999.1.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="1">1</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1999-07">July 1999</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0004900" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID49"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2007-04-10"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-04-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-13"></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:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="49">49</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="56">56</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID49.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="26"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a3" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Ann</givenNames><familyName>Wennerberg</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Torsten</givenNames><familyName>Jemt</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">complications</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">cumultive survival rate (CSR)</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">fixed prosthesis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">partially edentulous patients</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p> <i>Background</i>: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations.</p><p> <i>Purpose</i>: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment.</p><p> <i>Materials and Methods</i>: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols.</p><p> <i>Results</i>: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p <.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p<.01).</p><p> <i>Conclusions</i>: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ann</namePart><namePart type="family">Wennerberg</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.</affiliation><affiliation>Correspondence address: Reprint requests: Ann Wennerberg, DDS, PhD, Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, Box 412, 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Torsten</namePart><namePart type="family">Jemt</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Rehabilitation/Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, University of Göteborg, 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>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-07</dateIssued><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="references">26</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">6</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Background: Numerous studies have reported successful outcomes for restoration of fully endentulous patients with Brånemark implants. However, some studies indicate more mechanical problems in restored partially endentulous situations. Purpose: The objective was to study patients with potential risk for mechanical complications after implant treatment. Materials and Methods: Patients were retrospectively evaluated 5 years after implant treatment in upper jaw Appelgate‐Kennedy Class II situations. Altogether 422 implants ad modum Brånemark were installed in 137 consecutively treated patients. One hundred thirty‐three prostheses were placed and followed‐up for 5 years, according to routine clinical protocols. Results: The overall 5‐year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 94.0%. The corresponding CSR for loaded implants and prostheses was 97.7% and 98.4%, respectively, and the overall marginal bone loss was 0.8 mm (0.6 mm) after 5 years. Sixteen abutment screws fractured in seven patients (5%) and 17 prostheses (13%) presented loose abutment or gold screws during the follow‐up period. Significantly more problems were reported in association with prostheses that included the canine (p <.05), and significantly more gold screws were working loose when only two implants were supporting the frameworks (p<.01). Conclusions: Upper jaw implant treatment in unilateral free‐end situations seems to involve more mechanical problems than other implant treatment groups when only two implants can be installed and when the canine tooth is missing. However, most of these complications are easily adjusted, and the clinical survival of implants and prostheses is the same for these groups compared to other groups of partially edentulous implant patients.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>complications</topic><topic>cumultive survival rate (CSR)</topic><topic>fixed prosthesis</topic><topic>implants</topic><topic>partially edentulous patients</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>1999</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>1</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>49</start><end>56</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-6BGLTRCC-X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00091.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID49</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>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8/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 004184 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 004184 | 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:84A825D74B81CC90B1C9C722BDAAB919FBB2BFE8
|texte= Complications in Partially Edentulous Implant Patients: A 5‐Year Retrospective Follow‐up Study of 133 Patients Supplied with Unilateral Maxillary Prostheses
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |