The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®
Identifieur interne : 005192 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005191; suivant : 005193The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®
Auteurs : Stefan Vandeweghe ; Jan Cosyn ; Eric Thevissen ; Johan Teerlinck ; Hugo De BruynSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2012-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Anterior maxilla, Astra tech, Bone level, Bone levels, Bone loss, Branemark, Branemark system implants, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Current study, Dent, Dental implants, Different implant systems, Early loading, Edentulous, Gender, Ghent, Health sciences, Immediate loading, Implant, Implant design, Implant designs, Implant failure, Implant length, Implant success, Implant survival, Implant thread pitch, Implant type, Implantology, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxilla, Maxillofac, More bone loss, Oral maxillofac implants, Overdentures, Pearson correlation, Periodontology, Present report, Present study, Prospective study, Radiograph, Ranks test, Relat, Southern implants, Tapered implant, Tapered implants, Thread pitch.
- Teeft :
- Anterior maxilla, Astra tech, Bone level, Bone levels, Bone loss, Branemark, Branemark system implants, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Current study, Dent, Dental implants, Different implant systems, Early loading, Edentulous, Gender, Ghent, Health sciences, Immediate loading, Implant, Implant design, Implant designs, Implant failure, Implant length, Implant success, Implant survival, Implant thread pitch, Implant type, Implantology, Mandibular, Mandibular overdentures, Maxilla, Maxillofac, More bone loss, Oral maxillofac implants, Overdentures, Pearson correlation, Periodontology, Present report, Present study, Prospective study, Radiograph, Ranks test, Relat, Southern implants, Tapered implant, Tapered implants, Thread pitch.
Abstract
Background: Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title><author><name sortKey="Vandeweghe, Stefan" sort="Vandeweghe, Stefan" uniqKey="Vandeweghe S" first="Stefan" last="Vandeweghe">Stefan Vandeweghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Cosyn, Jan" sort="Cosyn, Jan" uniqKey="Cosyn J" first="Jan" last="Cosyn">Jan Cosyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thevissen, Eric" sort="Thevissen, Eric" uniqKey="Thevissen E" first="Eric" last="Thevissen">Eric Thevissen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Teerlinck, Johan" sort="Teerlinck, Johan" uniqKey="Teerlinck J" first="Johan" last="Teerlinck">Johan Teerlinck</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><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>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005192</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005192</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title><author><name sortKey="Vandeweghe, Stefan" sort="Vandeweghe, Stefan" uniqKey="Vandeweghe S" first="Stefan" last="Vandeweghe">Stefan Vandeweghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Cosyn, Jan" sort="Cosyn, Jan" uniqKey="Cosyn J" first="Jan" last="Cosyn">Jan Cosyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thevissen, Eric" sort="Thevissen, Eric" uniqKey="Thevissen E" first="Eric" last="Thevissen">Eric Thevissen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Teerlinck, Johan" sort="Teerlinck, Johan" uniqKey="Teerlinck J" first="Johan" last="Teerlinck">Johan Teerlinck</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><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>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</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">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="655">655</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="662">662</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-10">2012-10</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>Anterior maxilla</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone levels</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Current study</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Early loading</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Gender</term><term>Ghent</term><term>Health sciences</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant designs</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant success</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant thread pitch</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implantology</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>More bone loss</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Pearson correlation</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Present report</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Ranks test</term><term>Relat</term><term>Southern implants</term><term>Tapered implant</term><term>Tapered implants</term><term>Thread pitch</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Anterior maxilla</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone levels</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Current study</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Early loading</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Gender</term><term>Ghent</term><term>Health sciences</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant design</term><term>Implant designs</term><term>Implant failure</term><term>Implant length</term><term>Implant success</term><term>Implant survival</term><term>Implant thread pitch</term><term>Implant type</term><term>Implantology</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular overdentures</term><term>Maxilla</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>More bone loss</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Overdentures</term><term>Pearson correlation</term><term>Periodontology</term><term>Present report</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Radiograph</term><term>Ranks test</term><term>Relat</term><term>Southern implants</term><term>Tapered implant</term><term>Tapered implants</term><term>Thread pitch</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background: Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>thread pitch</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>implant design</json:string><json:string>southern implants</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>implant length</json:string><json:string>periodontology</json:string><json:string>implant survival</json:string><json:string>relat</json:string><json:string>implant success</json:string><json:string>maxilla</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>overdentures</json:string><json:string>radiograph</json:string><json:string>immediate loading</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>implantology</json:string><json:string>tapered implants</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>ghent</json:string><json:string>mandibular overdentures</json:string><json:string>bone levels</json:string><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>implant type</json:string><json:string>anterior maxilla</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>more bone loss</json:string><json:string>tapered implant</json:string><json:string>pearson correlation</json:string><json:string>branemark system implants</json:string><json:string>implant failure</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>different implant systems</json:string><json:string>present report</json:string><json:string>astra tech</json:string><json:string>early loading</json:string><json:string>implant thread pitch</json:string><json:string>implant designs</json:string><json:string>current study</json:string><json:string>ranks test</json:string><json:string>gender</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Stefan Vandeweghe DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jan Cosyn DDS, MSc, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Eric Thevissen DDS, MSc</name><affiliations><json:string>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Johan Teerlinck DDS, MSc</name><affiliations><json:string>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Hugo De Bruyn DDS, MSc, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium</json:string><json:string>E-mail: hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone remodeling</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>implant design</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Southern Implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>thread pitch</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID308</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-N5L28HDZ-J</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.642</score><pdfWordCount>4462</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28369</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>15</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>89</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title><pmid><json:string>20977610</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><issue>5</issue><pages><first>655</first><last>662</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2012</json:string><json:string>1960s</json:string><json:string>1987</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>University Hospital of Ghent</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology</json:string><json:string>University of Ghent</json:string><json:string>Belgium Reprint</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Branemark</json:string><json:string>Jan Cosyn</json:string><json:string>Orsini</json:string><json:string>Hugo De Bruyn</json:string><json:string>Eckert</json:string><json:string>Hansson</json:string><json:string>Esposito</json:string><json:string>Åstrand</json:string><json:string>Johan Teerlinck</json:string><json:string>Eric Thevissen</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Hasselt</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Ghent</json:string><json:string>Helsinki</json:string><json:string>South Africa</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Zurich</json:string><json:string>Belgium</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-N5L28HDZ-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.1708-8208.2010.00308.x</json:string></doi><id>A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2012-10"></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">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title><title level="a" type="short">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Stefan</forename><surname>Vandeweghe</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Jan</forename><surname>Cosyn</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSc, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Eric</forename><surname>Thevissen</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSc</roleName></persName><affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Johan</forename><surname>Teerlinck</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSc</roleName></persName><affiliation>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Hugo</forename><surname>De Bruyn</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSc, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Prof. Dr. Hugo De Bruyn, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, University Hospital of Ghent – P8, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; e‐mail: hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-N5L28HDZ-J</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID308</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID308.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.2012.14.issue-5</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="655">655</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="662">662</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012-10"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Background:</hi> Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Aim:</hi> To evaluate the impact of implant design on implant survival and success, focusing on thread pitch and implant shape.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and Methods:</hi> Non‐smoking patients treated by two experienced periodontists with standard diameter externally‐hexed Southern® implant(s) inserted in healed bone were retrospectively selected. A one‐stage surgical approach was used in all cases and implants had been installed for at least 6 months. Information pertaining to patient‐related variables, time of loading, implant design and radiographical outcome was retrieved from patients' records. Implant success was defined according to the criteria by Albrektsson and Isidor, taking into consideration bone level, defined as the distance from the implant–abutment interface to the first bone‐to‐implant contact.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> In total, 59 patients treated with one hundred eleven externally‐hexed Southern Implants® met the inclusion criteria. Fifty‐six straight implants with a thread pitch of 0.6 mm and 55 tapered implants with a thread pitch of 1.0 mm were placed. The total implant survival rate was 98.2% after a mean follow‐up period of 14 months (range 6–28). The mean bone level was 1.35 mm (SD 0.46, range 0.59–3.70) and the overall implant success rate was 75.7%. Age, gender, length, and time of loading were not decisive for implant neither failure nor bone loss in contradiction to implant design and thread pitch (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> < .01). Tapered implants with a 1.0 mm thread pitch were less successful than parallel‐walled implants with a 0.6 mm thread pitch.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion:</hi> The Southern Implants® system shows good short‐term survival rates and bone preservation. However, bone remodeling seems affected by the implant design. Whether this is due to the tapered shape of the implant or the thread pitch is unclear and needs to be elucidated in future research.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">bone remodeling</term><term xml:id="k2">dental implant</term><term xml:id="k3">implant design</term><term xml:id="k4">Southern Implants</term><term xml:id="k5">thread pitch</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>ARTICLES</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/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/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="10105"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2012.14.issue-5</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="14">14</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="5">5</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2012-10">October 2012</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID308"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ARTICLES</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:3.2.2 mode:FullText" date="2013-05-06"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2010-10-26"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2012-10-01"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-10-26"></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" number="655">655</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="662">662</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Prof. Dr. Hugo De Bruyn, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, University Hospital of Ghent – P8, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; e‐mail: <email>hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID308.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="71"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5145"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2010</title><title type="short">The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Stefan</givenNames><familyName>Vandeweghe</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Jan</givenNames><familyName>Cosyn</familyName><degrees>DDS, MSc, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Eric</givenNames><familyName>Thevissen</familyName><degrees>DDS, MSc</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Johan</givenNames><familyName>Teerlinck</familyName><degrees>DDS, MSc</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a5" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Hugo</givenNames><familyName>De Bruyn</familyName><degrees>DDS, MSc, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a5" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">bone remodeling</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">implant design</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">Southern Implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">thread pitch</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Background:</b> Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.</p><p><b>Aim:</b> To evaluate the impact of implant design on implant survival and success, focusing on thread pitch and implant shape.</p><p><b>Materials and Methods:</b> Non‐smoking patients treated by two experienced periodontists with standard diameter externally‐hexed Southern® implant(s) inserted in healed bone were retrospectively selected. A one‐stage surgical approach was used in all cases and implants had been installed for at least 6 months. Information pertaining to patient‐related variables, time of loading, implant design and radiographical outcome was retrieved from patients' records. Implant success was defined according to the criteria by Albrektsson and Isidor, taking into consideration bone level, defined as the distance from the implant–abutment interface to the first bone‐to‐implant contact.</p><p><b>Results:</b> In total, 59 patients treated with one hundred eleven externally‐hexed Southern Implants® met the inclusion criteria. Fifty‐six straight implants with a thread pitch of 0.6 mm and 55 tapered implants with a thread pitch of 1.0 mm were placed. The total implant survival rate was 98.2% after a mean follow‐up period of 14 months (range 6–28). The mean bone level was 1.35 mm (SD 0.46, range 0.59–3.70) and the overall implant success rate was 75.7%. Age, gender, length, and time of loading were not decisive for implant neither failure nor bone loss in contradiction to implant design and thread pitch (<i>p</i> < .01). Tapered implants with a 1.0 mm thread pitch were less successful than parallel‐walled implants with a 0.6 mm thread pitch.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> The Southern Implants® system shows good short‐term survival rates and bone preservation. However, bone remodeling seems affected by the implant design. Whether this is due to the tapered shape of the implant or the thread pitch is unclear and needs to be elucidated in future research.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Stefan</namePart><namePart type="family">Vandeweghe</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>Dentist, PhD student, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jan</namePart><namePart type="family">Cosyn</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSc, PhD</namePart><affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Eric</namePart><namePart type="family">Thevissen</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSc</namePart><affiliation>periodontist, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, and private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Hasselt, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Johan</namePart><namePart type="family">Teerlinck</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSc</namePart><affiliation>periodontist, private practice in periodontology and oral implantology, Turnhout, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hugo</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSc, PhD</namePart><affiliation>periodontist, professor, Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: hugo.debruyn@ugent.be</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">2012-10</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">2</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">71</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5145</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background: Implant survival and success have shown to be related to a number of factors.</abstract><abstract>Aim: To evaluate the impact of implant design on implant survival and success, focusing on thread pitch and implant shape.</abstract><abstract>Materials and Methods: Non‐smoking patients treated by two experienced periodontists with standard diameter externally‐hexed Southern® implant(s) inserted in healed bone were retrospectively selected. A one‐stage surgical approach was used in all cases and implants had been installed for at least 6 months. Information pertaining to patient‐related variables, time of loading, implant design and radiographical outcome was retrieved from patients' records. Implant success was defined according to the criteria by Albrektsson and Isidor, taking into consideration bone level, defined as the distance from the implant–abutment interface to the first bone‐to‐implant contact.</abstract><abstract>Results: In total, 59 patients treated with one hundred eleven externally‐hexed Southern Implants® met the inclusion criteria. Fifty‐six straight implants with a thread pitch of 0.6 mm and 55 tapered implants with a thread pitch of 1.0 mm were placed. The total implant survival rate was 98.2% after a mean follow‐up period of 14 months (range 6–28). The mean bone level was 1.35 mm (SD 0.46, range 0.59–3.70) and the overall implant success rate was 75.7%. Age, gender, length, and time of loading were not decisive for implant neither failure nor bone loss in contradiction to implant design and thread pitch (p < .01). Tapered implants with a 1.0 mm thread pitch were less successful than parallel‐walled implants with a 0.6 mm thread pitch.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: The Southern Implants® system shows good short‐term survival rates and bone preservation. However, bone remodeling seems affected by the implant design. Whether this is due to the tapered shape of the implant or the thread pitch is unclear and needs to be elucidated in future research.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>bone remodeling</topic><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>implant design</topic><topic>Southern Implants</topic><topic>thread pitch</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="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>14</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>655</start><end>662</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-N5L28HDZ-J</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00308.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID308</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 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/A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D/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 005192 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005192 | 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:A39F2F6D157937F545EF2097534C8AF83C7E827D
|texte= The Influence of Implant Design on Bone Remodeling around Surface‐Modified Southern Implants®
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |