Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw
Identifieur interne : 005391 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005390; suivant : 005392Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw
Auteurs : Youji Miyamoto ; Kenji Fujisawa ; Masaaki Takechi ; Yukihiro Momota ; Tetsuya Yuasa ; Seiko Tatehara ; Masaru Nagayama ; Eiji YamauchiSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2003-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Additional implants, Additional installation, Clin, Cumulative implant survival rates, Dentistry, Denture, Distal implant, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous mandibular, Failure rate, Foramen, Full prostheses, Full prosthesis, Gion poste, Groupe, Grupo, Gruppe, Impl, Implant, Implant installation, Implant loss, Implantate, Implantes, Interforaminal area, International journal, Komiyama, Likely cause, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular deformation, Maxillary dentition, Medial convergence, Mental foramen, Mental foramina, Miyamoto, Molar, Molar region, Mouth opening, Multiple implants, Nemark, Nobel biocare, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Partial prostheses, Poste, Posterior, Posterior implants, Posterior region, Posterior regions, Posterioren, Posterioren region, Premolar regions, Prosthesis, Same period, Superstructure, Survival rate.
- Teeft :
- Additional implants, Additional installation, Clin, Cumulative implant survival rates, Dentistry, Denture, Distal implant, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous mandibular, Failure rate, Foramen, Full prostheses, Full prosthesis, Gion poste, Groupe, Grupo, Gruppe, Impl, Implant, Implant installation, Implant loss, Implantate, Implantes, Interforaminal area, International journal, Komiyama, Likely cause, Mandible, Mandibular, Mandibular deformation, Maxillary dentition, Medial convergence, Mental foramen, Mental foramina, Miyamoto, Molar, Molar region, Mouth opening, Multiple implants, Nemark, Nobel biocare, Oral impl, Oral maxillofacial implants, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Partial prostheses, Poste, Posterior, Posterior implants, Posterior region, Posterior regions, Posterioren, Posterioren region, Premolar regions, Prosthesis, Same period, Superstructure, Survival rate.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (P<0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.
Url:
DOI: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><author><name sortKey="Miyamoto, Youji" sort="Miyamoto, Youji" uniqKey="Miyamoto Y" first="Youji" last="Miyamoto">Youji Miyamoto</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Fujisawa, Kenji" sort="Fujisawa, Kenji" uniqKey="Fujisawa K" first="Kenji" last="Fujisawa">Kenji Fujisawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Takechi, Masaaki" sort="Takechi, Masaaki" uniqKey="Takechi M" first="Masaaki" last="Takechi">Masaaki Takechi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Momota, Yukihiro" sort="Momota, Yukihiro" uniqKey="Momota Y" first="Yukihiro" last="Momota">Yukihiro Momota</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yuasa, Tetsuya" sort="Yuasa, Tetsuya" uniqKey="Yuasa T" first="Tetsuya" last="Yuasa">Tetsuya Yuasa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tatehara, Seiko" sort="Tatehara, Seiko" uniqKey="Tatehara S" first="Seiko" last="Tatehara">Seiko Tatehara</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Nagayama, Masaru" sort="Nagayama, Masaru" uniqKey="Nagayama M" first="Masaru" last="Nagayama">Masaru Nagayama</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yamauchi, Eiji" sort="Yamauchi, Eiji" uniqKey="Yamauchi E" first="Eiji" last="Yamauchi">Eiji Yamauchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005391</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005391</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><author><name sortKey="Miyamoto, Youji" sort="Miyamoto, Youji" uniqKey="Miyamoto Y" first="Youji" last="Miyamoto">Youji Miyamoto</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Fujisawa, Kenji" sort="Fujisawa, Kenji" uniqKey="Fujisawa K" first="Kenji" last="Fujisawa">Kenji Fujisawa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Takechi, Masaaki" sort="Takechi, Masaaki" uniqKey="Takechi M" first="Masaaki" last="Takechi">Masaaki Takechi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Momota, Yukihiro" sort="Momota, Yukihiro" uniqKey="Momota Y" first="Yukihiro" last="Momota">Yukihiro Momota</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yuasa, Tetsuya" sort="Yuasa, Tetsuya" uniqKey="Yuasa T" first="Tetsuya" last="Yuasa">Tetsuya Yuasa</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tatehara, Seiko" sort="Tatehara, Seiko" uniqKey="Tatehara S" first="Seiko" last="Tatehara">Seiko Tatehara</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Nagayama, Masaru" sort="Nagayama, Masaru" uniqKey="Nagayama M" first="Masaru" last="Nagayama">Masaru Nagayama</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yamauchi, Eiji" sort="Yamauchi, Eiji" uniqKey="Yamauchi E" first="Eiji" last="Yamauchi">Eiji Yamauchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</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">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="727">727</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="733">733</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12">2003-12</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>Additional implants</term><term>Additional installation</term><term>Clin</term><term>Cumulative implant survival rates</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Distal implant</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous mandibular</term><term>Failure rate</term><term>Foramen</term><term>Full prostheses</term><term>Full prosthesis</term><term>Gion poste</term><term>Groupe</term><term>Grupo</term><term>Gruppe</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Implantate</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Interforaminal area</term><term>International journal</term><term>Komiyama</term><term>Likely cause</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular deformation</term><term>Maxillary dentition</term><term>Medial convergence</term><term>Mental foramen</term><term>Mental foramina</term><term>Miyamoto</term><term>Molar</term><term>Molar region</term><term>Mouth opening</term><term>Multiple implants</term><term>Nemark</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Poste</term><term>Posterior</term><term>Posterior implants</term><term>Posterior region</term><term>Posterior regions</term><term>Posterioren</term><term>Posterioren region</term><term>Premolar regions</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Same period</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Survival rate</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Additional implants</term><term>Additional installation</term><term>Clin</term><term>Cumulative implant survival rates</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Distal implant</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous mandibular</term><term>Failure rate</term><term>Foramen</term><term>Full prostheses</term><term>Full prosthesis</term><term>Gion poste</term><term>Groupe</term><term>Grupo</term><term>Gruppe</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Implantate</term><term>Implantes</term><term>Interforaminal area</term><term>International journal</term><term>Komiyama</term><term>Likely cause</term><term>Mandible</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular deformation</term><term>Maxillary dentition</term><term>Medial convergence</term><term>Mental foramen</term><term>Mental foramina</term><term>Miyamoto</term><term>Molar</term><term>Molar region</term><term>Mouth opening</term><term>Multiple implants</term><term>Nemark</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral maxillofacial implants</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Partial prostheses</term><term>Poste</term><term>Posterior</term><term>Posterior implants</term><term>Posterior region</term><term>Posterior regions</term><term>Posterioren</term><term>Posterioren region</term><term>Premolar regions</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Same period</term><term>Superstructure</term><term>Survival rate</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (P<0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>posterior region</json:string><json:string>mandible</json:string><json:string>implant loss</json:string><json:string>implantes</json:string><json:string>foramen</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandibular</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>miyamoto</json:string><json:string>nemark</json:string><json:string>implantate</json:string><json:string>molar region</json:string><json:string>groupe</json:string><json:string>grupo</json:string><json:string>gruppe</json:string><json:string>mental foramen</json:string><json:string>posterior regions</json:string><json:string>posterioren</json:string><json:string>molar</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>poste</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>komiyama</json:string><json:string>mandibular deformation</json:string><json:string>additional installation</json:string><json:string>additional implants</json:string><json:string>partial prostheses</json:string><json:string>distal implant</json:string><json:string>mental foramina</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>posterior implants</json:string><json:string>failure rate</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>superstructure</json:string><json:string>gion poste</json:string><json:string>maxillary dentition</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>premolar regions</json:string><json:string>implant installation</json:string><json:string>mouth opening</json:string><json:string>posterioren region</json:string><json:string>multiple implants</json:string><json:string>same period</json:string><json:string>full prosthesis</json:string><json:string>cumulative implant survival rates</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>posterior</json:string><json:string>survival rate</json:string><json:string>likely cause</json:string><json:string>interforaminal area</json:string><json:string>medial convergence</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>full prostheses</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofacial implants</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Youji Miyamoto</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Kenji Fujisawa</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Masaaki Takechi</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Yukihiro Momota</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Tetsuya Yuasa</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Seiko Tatehara</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Masaru Nagayama</name><affiliations><json:string>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Eiji Yamauchi</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fully edentulous mandible</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>deformation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>failure</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>distortion</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR958</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-KC0R1WWR-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (P>0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.129</score><pdfWordCount>4129</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>26092</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 782 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>296</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1825</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><pmid><json:string>15015949</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>14</volume><issue>6</issue><pages><first>727</first><last>733</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1992</json:string><json:string>1960s</json:string><json:string>2003</json:string><json:string>3-18-15</json:string><json:string>1985</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Dentistry University</json:string><json:string>Japan Tel</json:string><json:string>University of Tokushima, Tokushima</json:string><json:string>Abacuus Concepts Inc., Berkeley</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Japan Eiji Y</json:string><json:string>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan Correspondence</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>E. Effect</json:string><json:string>Emtiaz</json:string><json:string>Komiyama</json:string><json:string>Kenji Fujisawa</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Tokushima</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Miyamoto et al</json:string><json:string>Abdel-Latif et al. (2000)</json:string><json:string>Komiyama 1996</json:string><json:string>Chen et al. (2000)</json:string><json:string>Korioth & Hannam 1994</json:string><json:string>Abdel-Latif et al.</json:string><json:string>Lekholm et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Abdel-Latif 2000</json:string><json:string>Komiyama (1996)</json:string><json:string>Olsson et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Ikeda et al. 1998, 1999</json:string><json:string>Lindquist et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Esposito et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Henry et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Bahat 2000</json:string><json:string>De Oliveira & Emtiaz 2000</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-KC0R1WWR-9</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></inist></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x</json:string></doi><id>A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></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">Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><title level="a" type="short">Additional implants in the molar region for the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Youji</forename><surname>Miyamoto</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Kenji</forename><surname>Fujisawa</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Masaaki</forename><surname>Takechi</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Yukihiro</forename><surname>Momota</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Tetsuya</forename><surname>Yuasa</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Seiko</forename><surname>Tatehara</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0006"><persName><forename type="first">Masaru</forename><surname>Nagayama</surname></persName><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0007"><persName><forename type="first">Eiji</forename><surname>Yamauchi</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan<address><country key="JP"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-KC0R1WWR-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR958</idno><idno type="supplier">958</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR958.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.2003.14.issue-6</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="727">727</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="733">733</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract:</head><p>The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Le but de cette étude a été d'examiner l'effet de l'installation supplémentaire d'implants dans la région postérieure sur le pronostic de traitement au niveau des mandibules édentées. Quinze patients qui avaient reçu des implants <hi rend="italic">ad modum</hi> Brånemark dans la mandibule édentée et achevé un suivi d'une année après l'ancrage de prothèses fixes ont été sélectionnés. Chez sept patients (groupe A) quatre ou cinq implants ont été placés entre les trous mentonniers, et chez huit patients (groupe P), un ou deux implants, un de chaque côté, ont été placés dans les régions postérieures en plus des implants entre les trous mentonniers. Tous les implants se sont ostéoïntégrés. Dans le groupe A, il n'y avait aucune perte d'implants après la mise en charge. Six implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients dans le groupe P durant la première année de mise en charge. Tous étaient localisés dans la région postérieure. Pour élucider si le taux d'échec des implants dans la région postérieure du groupe P après la mise en charge était spécialement élevé, les échecs ont également été comparés avec 89 implants qui avaient été installés dans la région postérieure de mandibules afin de supporter des prothèses partielles fixées durant la même période (groupe C). Le taux de survie cumulatif des implants du groupe P était de 60% tandis que pour les implants du groupe C il était de 100% (p<0,001). Lorsque les taux de survie des implants postérieurs avec la même longueur dans les deux groupes étaient comparés, il n'y avait des différences significatives que pour les implants de 7 et 10 m de long. Ces données démontrent que les implants postérieurs dans le groupe P représentent un risque important. La déformation de la mandibule dûe aux mouvements de la mâchoire a été considérée comme cause la plus vraisemblable de la perte implantaire. Lorsqu'un tel traitement modifié est choisi, il devrait donc être effectué avec une attention toute particulière.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Das Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, den Einfluss von zusätzlichen in der posterioren Region gesetzten Implantaten auf die Prognose bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern zu untersuchen. Man wählte 15 Patienten aus, die im zahnlosen Unterkiefer Implantate (Brånemark‐System, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) erhalten haben, und die nach deren Versorgung im ersten Jahresrecall erschienen sind. Bei sieben Patienten (Gruppe A) hatte man vier oder fünf Implantate zwischen die beiden Foramen mentale gesetzt, und bei acht Patienten (Gruppe P) hatte man zusätzlich zu den interforaminal gelegenen Implantaten noch beidseits je ein bis zwei Implantate in der posterioren Region gesetzt. Alle Implantate der beiden Gruppen osseointegrierten erfolgreich. In der Gruppe A kam es zu keinem Implantatverlust nach der Belastung. In der Gruppe P gingen innerhalb des einen Jahres mit funktioneller Belastung bei 5 Patienten sechs Implantate verloren. Sie lagen alle in der posterioren Region. Um herauszufinden, ob die Misserfolgsrate nach der Belastung der Implantaten in der posterioren Region der Gruppe P speziell hoch war oder nicht, wurde sie mit derjenigen von 89 Implantaten (Gruppe C) verglichen, die während derselben Zeit in der posterioren Region des Unterkiefers zur Befestigung von implantatgetragenen Brücken gesetzt worden waren. Die kumulative Überlebensrate der Implantate in der Gruppe P war 60%, währendem diejenige der Implantate in der Gruppe C 100% war (p<0.001). Verglich man bei diesen beiden Gruppen die Überlebensrate von posterioren Implantaten derselben Länge, fand man einzig für die 7 und 10 mm langen Implantate signifikante Unterschiede. Diese Resultate zeigen, dass die posterioren Implantate der Gruppe P einem grösseren Risiko unterworfen sind. Die Erklärung für den Implantatverlust lag wahrscheindlich in der Unterkieferverformung während den Kieferbewegungen. Daher sollte man bei der Anwendung solch modifizierter Behandlungskonzepte äusserste Vorsicht walten lassen. Der Einfluss von zusätzlichen Implantaten in der posterioren Region bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>La intención de este estudio fue dilucidar el efecto de la instalación adicional de implantes en la región posterior en el pronóstico del tratamiento en la mandíbula edéntula. Se seleccionaron quince pacientes que habían recibido implantes (Sistema Brånemark, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Suecia) en la mandíbula edéntula y completaron un año de seguimiento tras el ajuste de de prótesis fija anclada a los implantes. Se instalaron cuatro o cinco implantes en siete pacientes (Grupo A) entre los forámenes mentonianos, y en ocho pacientes (Grupo P) se instalaron uno o dos implantes en las regiones posteriores como adición a los implantes entre los forámenes. Todos los implantes de ambos grupos lograron la osteointegración. En el Grupo A no hubo pérdida de implantes tras la carga. Se perdieron seis implantes en 5 pacientes del Grupo P dentro del año tras la carga. Todos ellos estaban localizados en la región posterior. Para dilucidar si el índice de fracasos de los implantes en la región posterior del grupo P tras la carga fue especialmente alto, se compararon los fracasos con 89 implantes, que fueron instalados en la región posterior de la mandíbula para soportar prótesis parciales fijas ancladas en implantes, durante el mismo periodo (Grupo P). El índice acumulativo de supervivencia de los implantes del Grupo P fue del 60%, mientras que el de los implantes del Grupo C fue del 100% (p<0.001). Cuando se compararon los índices de supervivencia de los implantes posteriores con la misma longitud de los dos grupos, hubo diferencias significativas solo para los implantes de 7 y 10 mm de longitud. Estos datos demuestran que los implantes posteriores en el Grupo P tienen un riesgo mayor. Se pensó que la deformación de la mandíbula debida al movimiento era la causa mas probable de pérdida de los implantes. Por lo tanto, cuando se elige dicho tratamiento modificado, debe ser llevado a cabo con una atención meticulosa.</p><p>
<graphic url="image_n/CLR_958_fu1.gif" rend="inline image"></graphic>
</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">fully edentulous mandible</term><term xml:id="k2">deformation</term><term xml:id="k3">failure</term><term xml:id="k4">distortion</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original 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/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/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>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</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="12006"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2003.14.issue-6</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="14">14</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="6">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2003-12">December 2003</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="9" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR958"></id><id type="supplier" value="958"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2003-11-14"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2003-11-14"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-12"></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="727">727</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="733">733</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Correspondence to:</b>
<i>Youji Miyamoto</i>, DDS, PhD
First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
School of Dentistry University of Tokushima
3‐18‐15 Kuramoto‐cho, Tokushima 770‐8504,
Japan
Tel.: +81‐88‐633‐7352 Fax: +81‐88‐633‐7388 e‐mail: <email normalForm="miyamoto@dent.tokushima-u.ac.jp">miyamoto@dent.tokushima‐u.ac.jp</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR958.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> Accepted 24 October 2002</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="3"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="17"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5964"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="26"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title><title type="shortAuthors">Miyamoto et al.</title><title type="short">Additional implants in the molar region for the edentulous mandibular jaw</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Youji</givenNames><familyName>Miyamoto</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Kenji</givenNames><familyName>Fujisawa</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Masaaki</givenNames><familyName>Takechi</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Yukihiro</givenNames><familyName>Momota</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Tetsuya</givenNames><familyName>Yuasa</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Seiko</givenNames><familyName>Tatehara</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr7" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Masaru</givenNames><familyName>Nagayama</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr8" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Eiji</givenNames><familyName>Yamauchi</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="JP"><unparsedAffiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="JP"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">fully edentulous mandible</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">deformation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">failure</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">distortion</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract:</title><p>The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (<i>P</i><0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.</p><!--
To cite this article:
Miyamoto Y, Fujisawa K, Takechi M, Momota Y, Yuasa T, Tatehara S, Nagayama M, Yamauchi E. Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Clin. Oral Impl. Res.14, 2003; 727–733
--></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Le but de cette étude a été d'examiner l'effet de l'installation supplémentaire d'implants dans la région postérieure sur le pronostic de traitement au niveau des mandibules édentées. Quinze patients qui avaient reçu des implants <i>ad modum</i> Brånemark dans la mandibule édentée et achevé un suivi d'une année après l'ancrage de prothèses fixes ont été sélectionnés. Chez sept patients (groupe A) quatre ou cinq implants ont été placés entre les trous mentonniers, et chez huit patients (groupe P), un ou deux implants, un de chaque côté, ont été placés dans les régions postérieures en plus des implants entre les trous mentonniers. Tous les implants se sont ostéoïntégrés. Dans le groupe A, il n'y avait aucune perte d'implants après la mise en charge. Six implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients dans le groupe P durant la première année de mise en charge. Tous étaient localisés dans la région postérieure. Pour élucider si le taux d'échec des implants dans la région postérieure du groupe P après la mise en charge était spécialement élevé, les échecs ont également été comparés avec 89 implants qui avaient été installés dans la région postérieure de mandibules afin de supporter des prothèses partielles fixées durant la même période (groupe C). Le taux de survie cumulatif des implants du groupe P était de 60% tandis que pour les implants du groupe C il était de 100% (p<0,001). Lorsque les taux de survie des implants postérieurs avec la même longueur dans les deux groupes étaient comparés, il n'y avait des différences significatives que pour les implants de 7 et 10 m de long. Ces données démontrent que les implants postérieurs dans le groupe P représentent un risque important. La déformation de la mandibule dûe aux mouvements de la mâchoire a été considérée comme cause la plus vraisemblable de la perte implantaire. Lorsqu'un tel traitement modifié est choisi, il devrait donc être effectué avec une attention toute particulière.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Das Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, den Einfluss von zusätzlichen in der posterioren Region gesetzten Implantaten auf die Prognose bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern zu untersuchen. Man wählte 15 Patienten aus, die im zahnlosen Unterkiefer Implantate (Brånemark‐System, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) erhalten haben, und die nach deren Versorgung im ersten Jahresrecall erschienen sind. Bei sieben Patienten (Gruppe A) hatte man vier oder fünf Implantate zwischen die beiden Foramen mentale gesetzt, und bei acht Patienten (Gruppe P) hatte man zusätzlich zu den interforaminal gelegenen Implantaten noch beidseits je ein bis zwei Implantate in der posterioren Region gesetzt. Alle Implantate der beiden Gruppen osseointegrierten erfolgreich. In der Gruppe A kam es zu keinem Implantatverlust nach der Belastung. In der Gruppe P gingen innerhalb des einen Jahres mit funktioneller Belastung bei 5 Patienten sechs Implantate verloren. Sie lagen alle in der posterioren Region. Um herauszufinden, ob die Misserfolgsrate nach der Belastung der Implantaten in der posterioren Region der Gruppe P speziell hoch war oder nicht, wurde sie mit derjenigen von 89 Implantaten (Gruppe C) verglichen, die während derselben Zeit in der posterioren Region des Unterkiefers zur Befestigung von implantatgetragenen Brücken gesetzt worden waren. Die kumulative Überlebensrate der Implantate in der Gruppe P war 60%, währendem diejenige der Implantate in der Gruppe C 100% war (p<0.001). Verglich man bei diesen beiden Gruppen die Überlebensrate von posterioren Implantaten derselben Länge, fand man einzig für die 7 und 10 mm langen Implantate signifikante Unterschiede. Diese Resultate zeigen, dass die posterioren Implantate der Gruppe P einem grösseren Risiko unterworfen sind. Die Erklärung für den Implantatverlust lag wahrscheindlich in der Unterkieferverformung während den Kieferbewegungen. Daher sollte man bei der Anwendung solch modifizierter Behandlungskonzepte äusserste Vorsicht walten lassen. Der Einfluss von zusätzlichen Implantaten in der posterioren Region bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>La intención de este estudio fue dilucidar el efecto de la instalación adicional de implantes en la región posterior en el pronóstico del tratamiento en la mandíbula edéntula. Se seleccionaron quince pacientes que habían recibido implantes (Sistema Brånemark, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Suecia) en la mandíbula edéntula y completaron un año de seguimiento tras el ajuste de de prótesis fija anclada a los implantes. Se instalaron cuatro o cinco implantes en siete pacientes (Grupo A) entre los forámenes mentonianos, y en ocho pacientes (Grupo P) se instalaron uno o dos implantes en las regiones posteriores como adición a los implantes entre los forámenes. Todos los implantes de ambos grupos lograron la osteointegración. En el Grupo A no hubo pérdida de implantes tras la carga. Se perdieron seis implantes en 5 pacientes del Grupo P dentro del año tras la carga. Todos ellos estaban localizados en la región posterior. Para dilucidar si el índice de fracasos de los implantes en la región posterior del grupo P tras la carga fue especialmente alto, se compararon los fracasos con 89 implantes, que fueron instalados en la región posterior de la mandíbula para soportar prótesis parciales fijas ancladas en implantes, durante el mismo periodo (Grupo P). El índice acumulativo de supervivencia de los implantes del Grupo P fue del 60%, mientras que el de los implantes del Grupo C fue del 100% (p<0.001). Cuando se compararon los índices de supervivencia de los implantes posteriores con la misma longitud de los dos grupos, hubo diferencias significativas solo para los implantes de 7 y 10 mm de longitud. Estos datos demuestran que los implantes posteriores en el Grupo P tienen un riesgo mayor. Se pensó que la deformación de la mandíbula debida al movimiento era la causa mas probable de pérdida de los implantes. Por lo tanto, cuando se elige dicho tratamiento modificado, debe ser llevado a cabo con una atención meticulosa.</p><p> <inlineGraphic alt="inline image" location="image_n/CLR_958_fu1.gif" href=""></inlineGraphic> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Additional implants in the molar region for the edentulous mandibular jaw</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Youji</namePart><namePart type="family">Miyamoto</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kenji</namePart><namePart type="family">Fujisawa</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Masaaki</namePart><namePart type="family">Takechi</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Yukihiro</namePart><namePart type="family">Momota</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Tetsuya</namePart><namePart type="family">Yuasa</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Seiko</namePart><namePart type="family">Tatehara</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Masaru</namePart><namePart type="family">Nagayama</namePart><affiliation>First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Eiji</namePart><namePart type="family">Yamauchi</namePart><affiliation>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan</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">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-12</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 24 October 2002</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">3</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">17</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">26</extent><extent unit="words">5964</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1‐year follow‐up after the fitting of implant‐anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant‐anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (P<0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7‐ and 10‐mm‐length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Le but de cette étude a été d'examiner l'effet de l'installation supplémentaire d'implants dans la région postérieure sur le pronostic de traitement au niveau des mandibules édentées. Quinze patients qui avaient reçu des implants ad modum Brånemark dans la mandibule édentée et achevé un suivi d'une année après l'ancrage de prothèses fixes ont été sélectionnés. Chez sept patients (groupe A) quatre ou cinq implants ont été placés entre les trous mentonniers, et chez huit patients (groupe P), un ou deux implants, un de chaque côté, ont été placés dans les régions postérieures en plus des implants entre les trous mentonniers. Tous les implants se sont ostéoïntégrés. Dans le groupe A, il n'y avait aucune perte d'implants après la mise en charge. Six implants ont été perdus chez cinq patients dans le groupe P durant la première année de mise en charge. Tous étaient localisés dans la région postérieure. Pour élucider si le taux d'échec des implants dans la région postérieure du groupe P après la mise en charge était spécialement élevé, les échecs ont également été comparés avec 89 implants qui avaient été installés dans la région postérieure de mandibules afin de supporter des prothèses partielles fixées durant la même période (groupe C). Le taux de survie cumulatif des implants du groupe P était de 60% tandis que pour les implants du groupe C il était de 100% (p<0,001). Lorsque les taux de survie des implants postérieurs avec la même longueur dans les deux groupes étaient comparés, il n'y avait des différences significatives que pour les implants de 7 et 10 m de long. Ces données démontrent que les implants postérieurs dans le groupe P représentent un risque important. La déformation de la mandibule dûe aux mouvements de la mâchoire a été considérée comme cause la plus vraisemblable de la perte implantaire. Lorsqu'un tel traitement modifié est choisi, il devrait donc être effectué avec une attention toute particulière.</abstract><abstract lang="de">Das Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, den Einfluss von zusätzlichen in der posterioren Region gesetzten Implantaten auf die Prognose bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern zu untersuchen. Man wählte 15 Patienten aus, die im zahnlosen Unterkiefer Implantate (Brånemark‐System, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) erhalten haben, und die nach deren Versorgung im ersten Jahresrecall erschienen sind. Bei sieben Patienten (Gruppe A) hatte man vier oder fünf Implantate zwischen die beiden Foramen mentale gesetzt, und bei acht Patienten (Gruppe P) hatte man zusätzlich zu den interforaminal gelegenen Implantaten noch beidseits je ein bis zwei Implantate in der posterioren Region gesetzt. Alle Implantate der beiden Gruppen osseointegrierten erfolgreich. In der Gruppe A kam es zu keinem Implantatverlust nach der Belastung. In der Gruppe P gingen innerhalb des einen Jahres mit funktioneller Belastung bei 5 Patienten sechs Implantate verloren. Sie lagen alle in der posterioren Region. Um herauszufinden, ob die Misserfolgsrate nach der Belastung der Implantaten in der posterioren Region der Gruppe P speziell hoch war oder nicht, wurde sie mit derjenigen von 89 Implantaten (Gruppe C) verglichen, die während derselben Zeit in der posterioren Region des Unterkiefers zur Befestigung von implantatgetragenen Brücken gesetzt worden waren. Die kumulative Überlebensrate der Implantate in der Gruppe P war 60%, währendem diejenige der Implantate in der Gruppe C 100% war (p<0.001). Verglich man bei diesen beiden Gruppen die Überlebensrate von posterioren Implantaten derselben Länge, fand man einzig für die 7 und 10 mm langen Implantate signifikante Unterschiede. Diese Resultate zeigen, dass die posterioren Implantate der Gruppe P einem grösseren Risiko unterworfen sind. Die Erklärung für den Implantatverlust lag wahrscheindlich in der Unterkieferverformung während den Kieferbewegungen. Daher sollte man bei der Anwendung solch modifizierter Behandlungskonzepte äusserste Vorsicht walten lassen. Der Einfluss von zusätzlichen Implantaten in der posterioren Region bei der Behandlung von zahnlosen Unterkiefern.</abstract><abstract lang="es">La intención de este estudio fue dilucidar el efecto de la instalación adicional de implantes en la región posterior en el pronóstico del tratamiento en la mandíbula edéntula. Se seleccionaron quince pacientes que habían recibido implantes (Sistema Brånemark, Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Suecia) en la mandíbula edéntula y completaron un año de seguimiento tras el ajuste de de prótesis fija anclada a los implantes. Se instalaron cuatro o cinco implantes en siete pacientes (Grupo A) entre los forámenes mentonianos, y en ocho pacientes (Grupo P) se instalaron uno o dos implantes en las regiones posteriores como adición a los implantes entre los forámenes. Todos los implantes de ambos grupos lograron la osteointegración. En el Grupo A no hubo pérdida de implantes tras la carga. Se perdieron seis implantes en 5 pacientes del Grupo P dentro del año tras la carga. Todos ellos estaban localizados en la región posterior. Para dilucidar si el índice de fracasos de los implantes en la región posterior del grupo P tras la carga fue especialmente alto, se compararon los fracasos con 89 implantes, que fueron instalados en la región posterior de la mandíbula para soportar prótesis parciales fijas ancladas en implantes, durante el mismo periodo (Grupo P). El índice acumulativo de supervivencia de los implantes del Grupo P fue del 60%, mientras que el de los implantes del Grupo C fue del 100% (p<0.001). Cuando se compararon los índices de supervivencia de los implantes posteriores con la misma longitud de los dos grupos, hubo diferencias significativas solo para los implantes de 7 y 10 mm de longitud. Estos datos demuestran que los implantes posteriores en el Grupo P tienen un riesgo mayor. Se pensó que la deformación de la mandíbula debida al movimiento era la causa mas probable de pérdida de los implantes. Por lo tanto, cuando se elige dicho tratamiento modificado, debe ser llevado a cabo con una atención meticulosa.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>fully edentulous mandible</topic><topic>deformation</topic><topic>failure</topic><topic>distortion</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>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>14</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>727</start><end>733</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-KC0R1WWR-9</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR958</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/A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9/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 005391 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005391 | 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:A7C2ED2D3910A51A96F22BD006455EA8B42476D9
|texte= Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |