Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants
Identifieur interne : 004C48 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 004C47; suivant : 004C49Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants
Auteurs : Hugo De Bruyn ; Ulf Lindén ; Bruno Collaert ; Anna-Lisa BjörnSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2000-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abrasion, Abutment, Abutment connection, Acceptable quality, Adjacent teeth, Avec, Baseline, Bruyn, Clinical examination, Clinical quality, Complete reconstructions, Complication, Dental implants, Dental technician, Esthetic appearance, Esthetics, Experiencia previa, Facial height, General dentists, Implant, Implant placement, Implant prosthetics, Implant prosthodontics, Implant site, Implant survival, Implantology brussels, Independent examiner, Inexperienced dentists, Malmo university, Metal framework, Partial reconstructions, Postgraduate training course, Present study, Professional performance, Prosthesis, Prosthesis survival, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic condition, Prosthodontic parameters, Prosthodontic reconstruction, Prosthodontic work, Prosthodontics, Public health service, Quality evaluation rating system, Questionnaire study, Reconstruction, Rekonstruktionen, Restorative dentist, Restorative work, Second examination, Team approach, Technical complications, Technical failures, Treatment result, Tres anos, Unacceptable.
- Teeft :
- Abrasion, Abutment, Abutment connection, Acceptable quality, Adjacent teeth, Avec, Baseline, Bruyn, Clinical examination, Clinical quality, Complete reconstructions, Complication, Dental implants, Dental technician, Esthetic appearance, Esthetics, Experiencia previa, Facial height, General dentists, Implant, Implant placement, Implant prosthetics, Implant prosthodontics, Implant site, Implant survival, Implantology brussels, Independent examiner, Inexperienced dentists, Malmo university, Metal framework, Partial reconstructions, Postgraduate training course, Present study, Professional performance, Prosthesis, Prosthesis survival, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthodontic, Prosthodontic condition, Prosthodontic parameters, Prosthodontic reconstruction, Prosthodontic work, Prosthodontics, Public health service, Quality evaluation rating system, Questionnaire study, Reconstruction, Rekonstruktionen, Restorative dentist, Restorative work, Second examination, Team approach, Technical complications, Technical failures, Treatment result, Tres anos, Unacceptable.
Abstract
The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (P<0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</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 for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö 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 of Prosthodontics, Malmö 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 for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bjorn, Anna Isa" sort="Bjorn, Anna Isa" uniqKey="Bjorn A" first="Anna-Lisa" last="Björn">Anna-Lisa Björn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">004C48</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">004C48</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</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 for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö 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 of Prosthodontics, Malmö 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 for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bjorn, Anna Isa" sort="Bjorn, Anna Isa" uniqKey="Bjorn A" first="Anna-Lisa" last="Björn">Anna-Lisa Björn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, 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">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="248">248</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="255">255</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06">2000-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abrasion</term><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment connection</term><term>Acceptable quality</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Avec</term><term>Baseline</term><term>Bruyn</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical quality</term><term>Complete reconstructions</term><term>Complication</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental technician</term><term>Esthetic appearance</term><term>Esthetics</term><term>Experiencia previa</term><term>Facial height</term><term>General dentists</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant prosthetics</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Implant site</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implantology brussels</term><term>Independent examiner</term><term>Inexperienced dentists</term><term>Malmo university</term><term>Metal framework</term><term>Partial reconstructions</term><term>Postgraduate training course</term><term>Present study</term><term>Professional performance</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis survival</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic condition</term><term>Prosthodontic parameters</term><term>Prosthodontic reconstruction</term><term>Prosthodontic work</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Public health service</term><term>Quality evaluation rating system</term><term>Questionnaire study</term><term>Reconstruction</term><term>Rekonstruktionen</term><term>Restorative dentist</term><term>Restorative work</term><term>Second examination</term><term>Team approach</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Technical failures</term><term>Treatment result</term><term>Tres anos</term><term>Unacceptable</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abrasion</term><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment connection</term><term>Acceptable quality</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Avec</term><term>Baseline</term><term>Bruyn</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical quality</term><term>Complete reconstructions</term><term>Complication</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental technician</term><term>Esthetic appearance</term><term>Esthetics</term><term>Experiencia previa</term><term>Facial height</term><term>General dentists</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant prosthetics</term><term>Implant prosthodontics</term><term>Implant site</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implantology brussels</term><term>Independent examiner</term><term>Inexperienced dentists</term><term>Malmo university</term><term>Metal framework</term><term>Partial reconstructions</term><term>Postgraduate training course</term><term>Present study</term><term>Professional performance</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis survival</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthodontic</term><term>Prosthodontic condition</term><term>Prosthodontic parameters</term><term>Prosthodontic reconstruction</term><term>Prosthodontic work</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Public health service</term><term>Quality evaluation rating system</term><term>Questionnaire study</term><term>Reconstruction</term><term>Rekonstruktionen</term><term>Restorative dentist</term><term>Restorative work</term><term>Second examination</term><term>Team approach</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Technical failures</term><term>Treatment result</term><term>Tres anos</term><term>Unacceptable</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (P<0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>bruyn</json:string><json:string>prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>partial reconstructions</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>complete reconstructions</json:string><json:string>rekonstruktionen</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>dental technician</json:string><json:string>questionnaire study</json:string><json:string>independent examiner</json:string><json:string>metal framework</json:string><json:string>implant prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>team approach</json:string><json:string>clinical quality</json:string><json:string>malmo university</json:string><json:string>implant survival</json:string><json:string>abrasion</json:string><json:string>baseline</json:string><json:string>avec</json:string><json:string>unacceptable</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>technical failures</json:string><json:string>facial height</json:string><json:string>inexperienced dentists</json:string><json:string>general dentists</json:string><json:string>esthetic appearance</json:string><json:string>postgraduate training course</json:string><json:string>tres anos</json:string><json:string>professional performance</json:string><json:string>adjacent teeth</json:string><json:string>implant site</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic reconstruction</json:string><json:string>quality evaluation rating system</json:string><json:string>restorative work</json:string><json:string>acceptable quality</json:string><json:string>implant prosthetics</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>implantology brussels</json:string><json:string>restorative dentist</json:string><json:string>experiencia previa</json:string><json:string>public health service</json:string><json:string>second examination</json:string><json:string>clinical examination</json:string><json:string>abutment connection</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic condition</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic work</json:string><json:string>prosthesis survival</json:string><json:string>technical complications</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic parameters</json:string><json:string>treatment result</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>reconstruction</json:string><json:string>esthetics</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ulf Lindén</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Bruno Collaert</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Anna‐Lisa Björn</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, 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>quality</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthodontics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>satisfaction</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>clr8o487</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-GG28B6C8-7</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (P>0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.521</score><pdfWordCount>4521</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>30435</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>298</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>2071</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</title><pmid><json:string>11168216</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>11</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>248</first><last>255</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2000</json:string><json:string>1983</json:string><json:string>1962</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>H. De Bruyn</json:string><json:string>Hugo De Bruyn</json:string><json:string>U. Linden</json:string><json:string>Bruno Collaert</json:string><json:string>Anna-Lisa Bjorn</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Antwerp</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Vermijlen 1997</json:string><json:string>Californian Dental Association 1977</json:string><json:string>Randow 1986</json:string><json:string>De Bruyn et al.</json:string><json:string>Karlsson 1989</json:string><json:string>De Bruyn et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Jemt et al. (1996)</json:string><json:string>Rangert et al. (1997)</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-GG28B6C8-7</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 - chirurgie (generalites). transplantations, greffes d'organes et de tissus. pathologie des greffons</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x</json:string></doi><id>993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</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="2000-06"></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">Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</title><title level="a" type="sub">A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices</title><title level="a" type="short">Quality of treatment by inexperienced dentists</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Hugo</forename><surname>Bruyn</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Ulf</forename><surname>Lindén</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Bruno</forename><surname>Collaert</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Anna‐Lisa</forename><surname>Björn</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-GG28B6C8-7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x</idno><idno type="supplier">clr8o487</idno><idno type="unit">CLR11003248</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR11003248.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.2000.11.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="248">248</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="255">255</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="italic">P</hi><:t>The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (</:t><:t><0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.</:t></p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">quality</term><term xml:id="k3">prosthodontics</term><term xml:id="k4">satisfaction</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Article</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/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/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="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2000.11.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="11">11</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-06">June 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0024800" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x</doi><idGroup><id type="supplier" value="clr8o487"></id><id type="unit" value="CLR11003248"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</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="248">248</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="255">255</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Hugo De Bruyn, Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Basilieklaan 373/14, 1081 Brussels, Belgium
Fax: +32 24117667
e‐mail:
<email>hugo.debruyn@glo.be</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR11003248.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 5 July 1999</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5652"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</title><title type="subtitle">A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices</title><title type="shortAuthors">De Bruyn et al.</title><title type="short">Quality of treatment by inexperienced dentists</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Hugo</givenNames><familyNamePrefix>De </familyNamePrefix><familyName>
Bruyn
</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Ulf</givenNames><familyName>Lindén</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Bruno</givenNames><familyName>Collaert</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Anna‐Lisa</givenNames><familyName>Björn</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">quality</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">prosthodontics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">satisfaction</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (<i>P</i><0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</title><subTitle>A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Quality of treatment by inexperienced dentists</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hugo</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö 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 of Prosthodontics, Malmö 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 for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Malmö University, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Anna‐Lisa</namePart><namePart type="family">Björn</namePart><affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Malmö University, 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">2000-06</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 5 July 1999</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">0</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5652</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The aim of the present prospective study were to describe the quality of implant supported reconstructions made by dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics and to evaluate alterations and complications from the moment of insertion to 3 years later. Before starting with the prosthodontic work, the dentists had participated in a 2‐day postgraduate course focusing on planning and practical training. Forty‐nine patients were clinically examined within 4 months after insertion of the fixed implant supported prosthesis. Three years later 39 of the 49 participants underwent a second examination by the same independent examiner. Thirty‐one patients had a complete rehabilitation (25 with resin teeth bonded to a metal framework and 6 ceramo‐metal bridges); 8 patients had partial ceramo‐metal reconstructions. The parameters assessing the quality of the restoration were design, fit, occlusion/articulation and esthetics. Oral hygiene and health of the peri‐implant tissues were also examined. Each parameter was scored as perfect, acceptable, to be corrected or to be redone. These scores were a modification of “The guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance of the Californian Dental Association”. The initial prosthodontic quality was rated perfect to acceptable except for one restoration which had an unacceptable fit and had to be modified. After 3 years of function the quality did not change except for esthetics which worsened for resin bonded teeth (P<0.05). The esthetic appearance of ceramo–metal reconstructions were unaltered. The peri‐implant condition was predominantly healthy and stable during 3 years. The conclusion of the present study is that dentists previously inexperienced with implant prosthodontics implemented the information from a training course satisfactorily. They were able to make a clinically acceptable restoration with a quality that was stable after 3 years except for discoloration in resin bonded teeth. This, however, had no effect on patient's opinion and satisfaction.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>quality</topic><topic>prosthodontics</topic><topic>satisfaction</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>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>11</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>248</start><end>255</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-GG28B6C8-7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003248.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">clr8o487</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/993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12/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 004C48 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 004C48 | 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:993B1E42A89A579A09660315FD446F4614E00A12
|texte= Quality of fixed restorative treatment on Brånemark implants
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |