Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Identifieur interne : 005259 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005258; suivant : 005260Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Auteurs : Othman Shibly ; Ahmad Kutkut ; Nishith Patel ; Jasim M. AlbandarSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2012-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Baseline, Baseline year, Bone crest, Bone gain, Bone graft, Bone healing, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone regeneration, Branemark, Branemark implants, Branemark system implants, Buccal tissue, Central incisor, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical study, Closure, Conventional loading, Dent, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Dental studies, Dentistry, Edentulous, Edentulous arches, Esthetic zone, Extraction, Extraction site, Extraction socket, Extraction sockets, Final restoration, Fresh extraction sockets, Gingiva, Graft, Healing abutment, Hopeless tooth, Immediate function, Immediate implant, Immediate implant placement, Immediate implantation, Immediate implants, Immediate loading, Immediate occlusal loading, Implant, Implant area, Implant installation, Implant placement, Implant platform, Implant sites, Implant survival rate, Initial stability, Loading, Maxillofac, Months postoperatively, Mucogingival junction, Multicenter study, Oral implantol, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral surg, Osseointegrated implants, Othman shibly, Past history, Periodontal, Periodontal disease, Primary closure, Radiographic, Radiographic bone level, Radiographic measurements, Randomized, Regeneration, Relat, Similar outcome, Socket, Soft tissue, Study subjects, Success rates, Surgical, Surgical approach, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Temporary abutment, Temporary crown, Temporary resin crown, Tissue closure, Tooth extraction, Transmucosal approach, Transmucosal healing, Treatment groups, Treatment success rates, Vanden bogaerde, Whole study group.
- Teeft :
- Baseline, Baseline year, Bone crest, Bone gain, Bone graft, Bone healing, Bone level, Bone loss, Bone regeneration, Branemark, Branemark implants, Branemark system implants, Buccal tissue, Central incisor, Clin, Clin implant dent relat, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical study, Closure, Conventional loading, Dent, Dental implants, Dental medicine, Dental studies, Dentistry, Edentulous, Edentulous arches, Esthetic zone, Extraction, Extraction site, Extraction socket, Extraction sockets, Final restoration, Fresh extraction sockets, Gingiva, Graft, Healing abutment, Hopeless tooth, Immediate function, Immediate implant, Immediate implant placement, Immediate implantation, Immediate implants, Immediate loading, Immediate occlusal loading, Implant, Implant area, Implant installation, Implant placement, Implant platform, Implant sites, Implant survival rate, Initial stability, Loading, Maxillofac, Months postoperatively, Mucogingival junction, Multicenter study, Oral implantol, Oral maxillofac implants, Oral surg, Osseointegrated implants, Othman shibly, Past history, Periodontal, Periodontal disease, Primary closure, Radiographic, Radiographic bone level, Radiographic measurements, Randomized, Regeneration, Relat, Similar outcome, Socket, Soft tissue, Study subjects, Success rates, Surgical, Surgical approach, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Temporary abutment, Temporary crown, Temporary resin crown, Tissue closure, Tooth extraction, Transmucosal approach, Transmucosal healing, Treatment groups, Treatment success rates, Vanden bogaerde, Whole study group.
Abstract
Purpose: This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00310.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><author><name sortKey="Shibly, Othman" sort="Shibly, Othman" uniqKey="Shibly O" first="Othman" last="Shibly">Othman Shibly</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: shibly@buffalo.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kutkut, Ahmad" sort="Kutkut, Ahmad" uniqKey="Kutkut A" first="Ahmad" last="Kutkut">Ahmad Kutkut</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Patel, Nishith" sort="Patel, Nishith" uniqKey="Patel N" first="Nishith" last="Patel">Nishith Patel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Albandar, Jasim M" sort="Albandar, Jasim M" uniqKey="Albandar J" first="Jasim M." last="Albandar">Jasim M. Albandar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00310.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005259</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005259</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><author><name sortKey="Shibly, Othman" sort="Shibly, Othman" uniqKey="Shibly O" first="Othman" last="Shibly">Othman Shibly</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: shibly@buffalo.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kutkut, Ahmad" sort="Kutkut, Ahmad" uniqKey="Kutkut A" first="Ahmad" last="Kutkut">Ahmad Kutkut</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Patel, Nishith" sort="Patel, Nishith" uniqKey="Patel N" first="Nishith" last="Patel">Nishith Patel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Albandar, Jasim M" sort="Albandar, Jasim M" uniqKey="Albandar J" first="Jasim M." last="Albandar">Jasim M. Albandar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</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="663">663</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="671">671</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</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>Baseline</term><term>Baseline year</term><term>Bone crest</term><term>Bone gain</term><term>Bone graft</term><term>Bone healing</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implants</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Buccal tissue</term><term>Central incisor</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Closure</term><term>Conventional loading</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Dental studies</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous arches</term><term>Esthetic zone</term><term>Extraction</term><term>Extraction site</term><term>Extraction socket</term><term>Extraction sockets</term><term>Final restoration</term><term>Fresh extraction sockets</term><term>Gingiva</term><term>Graft</term><term>Healing abutment</term><term>Hopeless tooth</term><term>Immediate function</term><term>Immediate implant</term><term>Immediate implant placement</term><term>Immediate implantation</term><term>Immediate implants</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Immediate occlusal loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant area</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant platform</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant survival rate</term><term>Initial stability</term><term>Loading</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Months postoperatively</term><term>Mucogingival junction</term><term>Multicenter study</term><term>Oral implantol</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral surg</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Othman shibly</term><term>Past history</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Primary closure</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic bone level</term><term>Radiographic measurements</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Relat</term><term>Similar outcome</term><term>Socket</term><term>Soft tissue</term><term>Study subjects</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical approach</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Temporary abutment</term><term>Temporary crown</term><term>Temporary resin crown</term><term>Tissue closure</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Transmucosal approach</term><term>Transmucosal healing</term><term>Treatment groups</term><term>Treatment success rates</term><term>Vanden bogaerde</term><term>Whole study group</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Baseline</term><term>Baseline year</term><term>Bone crest</term><term>Bone gain</term><term>Bone graft</term><term>Bone healing</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Branemark implants</term><term>Branemark system implants</term><term>Buccal tissue</term><term>Central incisor</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin implant dent relat</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical study</term><term>Closure</term><term>Conventional loading</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental medicine</term><term>Dental studies</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous arches</term><term>Esthetic zone</term><term>Extraction</term><term>Extraction site</term><term>Extraction socket</term><term>Extraction sockets</term><term>Final restoration</term><term>Fresh extraction sockets</term><term>Gingiva</term><term>Graft</term><term>Healing abutment</term><term>Hopeless tooth</term><term>Immediate function</term><term>Immediate implant</term><term>Immediate implant placement</term><term>Immediate implantation</term><term>Immediate implants</term><term>Immediate loading</term><term>Immediate occlusal loading</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant area</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant platform</term><term>Implant sites</term><term>Implant survival rate</term><term>Initial stability</term><term>Loading</term><term>Maxillofac</term><term>Months postoperatively</term><term>Mucogingival junction</term><term>Multicenter study</term><term>Oral implantol</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Oral surg</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Othman shibly</term><term>Past history</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Primary closure</term><term>Radiographic</term><term>Radiographic bone level</term><term>Radiographic measurements</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Relat</term><term>Similar outcome</term><term>Socket</term><term>Soft tissue</term><term>Study subjects</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical approach</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Temporary abutment</term><term>Temporary crown</term><term>Temporary resin crown</term><term>Tissue closure</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Transmucosal approach</term><term>Transmucosal healing</term><term>Treatment groups</term><term>Treatment success rates</term><term>Vanden bogaerde</term><term>Whole study group</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose: This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>maxillofac</json:string><json:string>immediate loading</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>radiographic</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>immediate implants</json:string><json:string>randomized</json:string><json:string>conventional loading</json:string><json:string>bone regeneration</json:string><json:string>relat</json:string><json:string>gingiva</json:string><json:string>primary closure</json:string><json:string>clin implant dent relat</json:string><json:string>fresh extraction sockets</json:string><json:string>periodontal</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>regeneration</json:string><json:string>baseline</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>dental studies</json:string><json:string>tooth extraction</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>closure</json:string><json:string>bone gain</json:string><json:string>bone graft</json:string><json:string>clinical study</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>baseline year</json:string><json:string>bone crest</json:string><json:string>implant platform</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>graft</json:string><json:string>extraction</json:string><json:string>past history</json:string><json:string>radiographic measurements</json:string><json:string>dental medicine</json:string><json:string>bone healing</json:string><json:string>periodontal disease</json:string><json:string>extraction sockets</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>surgical procedures</json:string><json:string>branemark system implants</json:string><json:string>implant survival rate</json:string><json:string>radiographic bone level</json:string><json:string>socket</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>loading</json:string><json:string>success rates</json:string><json:string>extraction socket</json:string><json:string>whole study group</json:string><json:string>initial stability</json:string><json:string>temporary resin crown</json:string><json:string>temporary abutment</json:string><json:string>buccal tissue</json:string><json:string>central incisor</json:string><json:string>immediate implant</json:string><json:string>final restoration</json:string><json:string>temporary crown</json:string><json:string>healing abutment</json:string><json:string>immediate occlusal loading</json:string><json:string>mucogingival junction</json:string><json:string>implant area</json:string><json:string>implant sites</json:string><json:string>similar outcome</json:string><json:string>extraction site</json:string><json:string>immediate implant placement</json:string><json:string>study subjects</json:string><json:string>surgical approach</json:string><json:string>immediate implantation</json:string><json:string>treatment success rates</json:string><json:string>othman shibly</json:string><json:string>hopeless tooth</json:string><json:string>oral surg</json:string><json:string>tissue closure</json:string><json:string>transmucosal approach</json:string><json:string>immediate function</json:string><json:string>treatment groups</json:string><json:string>oral implantol</json:string><json:string>soft tissue</json:string><json:string>edentulous arches</json:string><json:string>months postoperatively</json:string><json:string>implant installation</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>branemark implants</json:string><json:string>esthetic zone</json:string><json:string>vanden bogaerde</json:string><json:string>multicenter study</json:string><json:string>transmucosal healing</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Othman Shibly DDS, MS</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</json:string><json:string>E-mail: shibly@buffalo.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ahmad Kutkut DDS, MS</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Nishith Patel DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jasim M. Albandar DDS, DMD, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone regeneration</value></json:item><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>osseointegration</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID310</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-Z15SJSJZ-L</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose: This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.903</score><pdfWordCount>4495</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28932</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>9</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>34</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>249</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><pmid><json:string>20977611</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>663</first><last>671</last><total>9</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1990s</json:string><json:string>2012</json:string><json:string>1</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Temple University</json:string><json:string>University of Buffalo School of Dental Medicine</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>National Institutes of Health</json:string><json:string>Fort Collins, CO</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontics and Endodontics</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>A. Conclusions</json:string><json:string>P.O. Box</json:string><json:string>Ahmad Kutkut</json:string><json:string>Pretreatment</json:string><json:string>Selection</json:string><json:string>Othman Shibly</json:string><json:string>Esposito</json:string><json:string>M. Albandar</json:string><json:string>Population</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Buffalo</json:string><json:string>Philadelphia</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>NY</json:string><json:string>VA</json:string><json:string>Virginia Beach</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Zurich</json:string><json:string>PA</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>December 2009</json:string><json:string>Buser et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-Z15SJSJZ-L</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.1708-8208.2010.00310.x</json:string></doi><id>A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</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">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><title level="a" type="short">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Othman</forename><surname>Shibly</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Othman Shibly, Center for Dental Studies, Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, University of Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, 250 Squire Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214; USA; e‐mail: shibly@buffalo.edu</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Ahmad</forename><surname>Kutkut</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Nishith</forename><surname>Patel</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Jasim M.</forename><surname>Albandar</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, DMD, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-Z15SJSJZ-L</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00310.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID310</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID310.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="663">663</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="671">671</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">9</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">Purpose:</hi> This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Methods:</hi> Sixty patients who chose an immediate implant treatment option to replace a hopeless tooth were included in this study.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Patients:</hi> Patients were randomly assigned to receive immediate implants with either immediate loading (group A) or conventional loading after 3 months (group B). At baseline, both groups received a mucoperiosteal flap, extraction, implant placement, allograft bone, and a membrane. Group A received a provisional crown. In group B, a cover screw was placed and primary closure was achieved. The patients were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> The 1‐year implant survival rate was 95% for the whole study group: 96.6% for group A, and 93.3% for group B. The bone level increased significantly in both groups (group A: 0.99 ± 0.22 mm; group B: 0.75 ± 0.17 mm), and the difference was not statistically significant (<hi rend="italic">p</hi> > 0.5). At the 1‐year postoperative visit, the mucogingival junction (MGJ) was found to be displaced coronally in 65% of implant sites in group B compared with 15% sites in group A.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions:</hi> Both the immediate and delayed loading of immediately placed implants showed similar outcome with regards to treatment success rates and stability of radiographic bone level. Submerging an immediately placed implant and primary soft tissue closure did not show significant outcome advantages over the transmucosal approach.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">bone regeneration</term><term xml:id="k2">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k3">osseointegration</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/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/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="4" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00310.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID310"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="9"></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="663">663</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="671">671</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Othman Shibly, Center for Dental Studies, Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, University of Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, 250 Squire Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214; USA; e‐mail: <email>shibly@buffalo.edu</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID310.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="51"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5329"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2010</title><title type="short">Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a6" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Othman</givenNames><familyName>Shibly</familyName><degrees>DDS, MS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a6"><personName><givenNames>Ahmad</givenNames><familyName>Kutkut</familyName><degrees>DDS, MS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a6"><personName><givenNames>Nishith</givenNames><familyName>Patel</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a7"><personName><givenNames>Jasim M.</givenNames><familyName>Albandar</familyName><degrees>DDS, DMD, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a6"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a7" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">bone regeneration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">osseointegration</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Purpose:</b> This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Sixty patients who chose an immediate implant treatment option to replace a hopeless tooth were included in this study.</p><p><b>Patients:</b> Patients were randomly assigned to receive immediate implants with either immediate loading (group A) or conventional loading after 3 months (group B). At baseline, both groups received a mucoperiosteal flap, extraction, implant placement, allograft bone, and a membrane. Group A received a provisional crown. In group B, a cover screw was placed and primary closure was achieved. The patients were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The 1‐year implant survival rate was 95% for the whole study group: 96.6% for group A, and 93.3% for group B. The bone level increased significantly in both groups (group A: 0.99 ± 0.22 mm; group B: 0.75 ± 0.17 mm), and the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> > 0.5). At the 1‐year postoperative visit, the mucogingival junction (MGJ) was found to be displaced coronally in 65% of implant sites in group B compared with 15% sites in group A.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Both the immediate and delayed loading of immediately placed implants showed similar outcome with regards to treatment success rates and stability of radiographic bone level. Submerging an immediately placed implant and primary soft tissue closure did not show significant outcome advantages over the transmucosal approach.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Othman</namePart><namePart type="family">Shibly</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MS</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: shibly@buffalo.edu</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ahmad</namePart><namePart type="family">Kutkut</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MS</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Nishith</namePart><namePart type="family">Patel</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>Center for Dental Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jasim M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Albandar</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, DMD, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Periodontal Diagnostics Research Laboratory, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA</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">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">51</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5329</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose: This 1‐year randomized clinical trial compared the bone regeneration and success rates between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a past history of periodontal disease.</abstract><abstract>Methods: Sixty patients who chose an immediate implant treatment option to replace a hopeless tooth were included in this study.</abstract><abstract>Patients: Patients were randomly assigned to receive immediate implants with either immediate loading (group A) or conventional loading after 3 months (group B). At baseline, both groups received a mucoperiosteal flap, extraction, implant placement, allograft bone, and a membrane. Group A received a provisional crown. In group B, a cover screw was placed and primary closure was achieved. The patients were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.</abstract><abstract>Results: The 1‐year implant survival rate was 95% for the whole study group: 96.6% for group A, and 93.3% for group B. The bone level increased significantly in both groups (group A: 0.99 ± 0.22 mm; group B: 0.75 ± 0.17 mm), and the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.5). At the 1‐year postoperative visit, the mucogingival junction (MGJ) was found to be displaced coronally in 65% of implant sites in group B compared with 15% sites in group A.</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: Both the immediate and delayed loading of immediately placed implants showed similar outcome with regards to treatment success rates and stability of radiographic bone level. Submerging an immediately placed implant and primary soft tissue closure did not show significant outcome advantages over the transmucosal approach.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>bone regeneration</topic><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>osseointegration</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>663</start><end>671</end><total>9</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-Z15SJSJZ-L</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00310.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID310</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/A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675/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 005259 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005259 | 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:A4E9662631ECD812552204087608C4A251547675
|texte= Immediate Implants with Immediate Loading vs. Conventional Loading: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |