Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism
Identifieur interne : 005733 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005732; suivant : 005734Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism
Auteurs : Lars-Erik Moberg ; Gun-Britt Sagulin ; Per- Ke Köndell ; Anders Heimdahl ; Göran W. Gynther ; Anders BolinSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2001-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment connection, Abutment screws, Acrylic fractures, Acrylic teeth, Adell, Antimicrobial treatment, Application point, Arch bridges, Balanced occlusion, Bone level, Bone loss, Bridge insertion, Bridge removal, Bridge screws, Buccal, Buser, Clin, Clinical patient satisfaction, Clinical registrations plaque, Comparative randomized study, Complication, Consecutive patients, Deeper periimplant sulcus, Dental implant system, Dental implant systema, Dental implants, Denture, Denture adjustment, Different implant systems, Distal edge, Early failure, Edentulism, Edentulismo mandibular, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Facial implants, High frequency, Hollow screw implants, Hygiene, Impl, Implant, Implant hygiene, Implant installation, Implant system, Implant systems, Implant systems table, Implant treatment, Implants research, Important factor, Inadequate space, Insertion, Institut straumann, International journal, Karlsson, Karolinska institute, Lekholm, Lingual aspects, Longitudinal, Longitudinal study, Mandibular, Mandibular edentulism, Mandibular function, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial surgery, Maximum mouth opening, Metal framework, Moberg, More time, Mucosa, Mucosa width, Mucosal, Mucosal aspect, National journal, Natural teeth, Nger force, Nobel biocare, Nonsubmerged titanium, Observation period, Occlusal, Oral hygiene, Oral impl, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Other implants, Other resources, Other studies, Periimplant, Periimplant bone loss, Periimplant infection, Periimplant mucosa, Periotest, Periotest values, Plaque, Plaque accumulation, Present study, Previous reports, Progressive bone loss, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthetic, Prosthetic complications, Prosthetic procedures, Prosthodontic parameters, Prosthodontic procedures, Radiographic examination, Resource requirements, Screw threads, Selftapping implants, Sensory changes, Success rate, Success rates, Sulcus, Surgical, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Surgical technique, Systema, Titanium, Titanium frameworks, Torque control device, Treatment time, Upper part, Zarb.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment connection, Abutment screws, Acrylic fractures, Acrylic teeth, Adell, Antimicrobial treatment, Application point, Arch bridges, Balanced occlusion, Bone level, Bone loss, Bridge insertion, Bridge removal, Bridge screws, Buccal, Buser, Clin, Clinical patient satisfaction, Clinical registrations plaque, Comparative randomized study, Complication, Consecutive patients, Deeper periimplant sulcus, Dental implant system, Dental implant systema, Dental implants, Denture, Denture adjustment, Different implant systems, Distal edge, Early failure, Edentulism, Edentulismo mandibular, Edentulous, Edentulous jaws, Edentulous patients, Facial implants, High frequency, Hollow screw implants, Hygiene, Impl, Implant, Implant hygiene, Implant installation, Implant system, Implant systems, Implant systems table, Implant treatment, Implants research, Important factor, Inadequate space, Insertion, Institut straumann, International journal, Karlsson, Karolinska institute, Lekholm, Lingual aspects, Longitudinal, Longitudinal study, Mandibular, Mandibular edentulism, Mandibular function, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial surgery, Maximum mouth opening, Metal framework, Moberg, More time, Mucosa, Mucosa width, Mucosal, Mucosal aspect, National journal, Natural teeth, Nger force, Nobel biocare, Nonsubmerged titanium, Observation period, Occlusal, Oral hygiene, Oral impl, Osseointegrated, Osseointegrated implants, Other implants, Other resources, Other studies, Periimplant, Periimplant bone loss, Periimplant infection, Periimplant mucosa, Periotest, Periotest values, Plaque, Plaque accumulation, Present study, Previous reports, Progressive bone loss, Prosthesis, Prosthesis insertion, Prosthetic, Prosthetic complications, Prosthetic procedures, Prosthodontic parameters, Prosthodontic procedures, Radiographic examination, Resource requirements, Screw threads, Selftapping implants, Sensory changes, Success rate, Success rates, Sulcus, Surgical, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Surgical technique, Systema, Titanium, Titanium frameworks, Torque control device, Treatment time, Upper part, Zarb.
Abstract
Abstract: In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark® two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI® one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><author><name sortKey="Moberg, Lars Rik" sort="Moberg, Lars Rik" uniqKey="Moberg L" first="Lars-Erik" last="Moberg">Lars-Erik Moberg</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: *,Department of ProsthodonticsKarolinska InstituteBox 4064S‐141 04HuddingeSwedenTel: +46 8 728 8204Fax: +46 8 711 0988</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sagulin, Gun Ritt" sort="Sagulin, Gun Ritt" uniqKey="Sagulin G" first="Gun-Britt" last="Sagulin">Gun-Britt Sagulin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kondell, Per E" sort="Kondell, Per E" uniqKey="Kondell P" first="Per- Ke" last="Köndell">Per- Ke Köndell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Heimdahl, Anders" sort="Heimdahl, Anders" uniqKey="Heimdahl A" first="Anders" last="Heimdahl">Anders Heimdahl</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gynther, Goran W" sort="Gynther, Goran W" uniqKey="Gynther G" first="Göran W." last="Gynther">Göran W. Gynther</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bolin, Anders" sort="Bolin, Anders" uniqKey="Bolin A" first="Anders" last="Bolin">Anders Bolin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005733</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005733</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Brånemark System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> and ITI Dental Implant System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><author><name sortKey="Moberg, Lars Rik" sort="Moberg, Lars Rik" uniqKey="Moberg L" first="Lars-Erik" last="Moberg">Lars-Erik Moberg</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Correspondence address: *,Department of ProsthodonticsKarolinska InstituteBox 4064S‐141 04HuddingeSwedenTel: +46 8 728 8204Fax: +46 8 711 0988</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sagulin, Gun Ritt" sort="Sagulin, Gun Ritt" uniqKey="Sagulin G" first="Gun-Britt" last="Sagulin">Gun-Britt Sagulin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kondell, Per E" sort="Kondell, Per E" uniqKey="Kondell P" first="Per- Ke" last="Köndell">Per- Ke Köndell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Heimdahl, Anders" sort="Heimdahl, Anders" uniqKey="Heimdahl A" first="Anders" last="Heimdahl">Anders Heimdahl</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gynther, Goran W" sort="Gynther, Goran W" uniqKey="Gynther G" first="Göran W." last="Gynther">Göran W. Gynther</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bolin, Anders" sort="Bolin, Anders" uniqKey="Bolin A" first="Anders" last="Bolin">Anders Bolin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="450">450</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="461">461</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-10">2001-10</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>Abutment</term><term>Abutment connection</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Acrylic fractures</term><term>Acrylic teeth</term><term>Adell</term><term>Antimicrobial treatment</term><term>Application point</term><term>Arch bridges</term><term>Balanced occlusion</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bridge insertion</term><term>Bridge removal</term><term>Bridge screws</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Buser</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical patient satisfaction</term><term>Clinical registrations plaque</term><term>Comparative randomized study</term><term>Complication</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Deeper periimplant sulcus</term><term>Dental implant system</term><term>Dental implant systema</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture adjustment</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Distal edge</term><term>Early failure</term><term>Edentulism</term><term>Edentulismo mandibular</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Facial implants</term><term>High frequency</term><term>Hollow screw implants</term><term>Hygiene</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant hygiene</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implant systems table</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Important factor</term><term>Inadequate space</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Institut straumann</term><term>International journal</term><term>Karlsson</term><term>Karolinska institute</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Lingual aspects</term><term>Longitudinal</term><term>Longitudinal study</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular edentulism</term><term>Mandibular function</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Maximum mouth opening</term><term>Metal framework</term><term>Moberg</term><term>More time</term><term>Mucosa</term><term>Mucosa width</term><term>Mucosal</term><term>Mucosal aspect</term><term>National journal</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Nger force</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other implants</term><term>Other resources</term><term>Other studies</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant bone loss</term><term>Periimplant infection</term><term>Periimplant mucosa</term><term>Periotest</term><term>Periotest values</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Present study</term><term>Previous reports</term><term>Progressive bone loss</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic complications</term><term>Prosthetic procedures</term><term>Prosthodontic parameters</term><term>Prosthodontic procedures</term><term>Radiographic examination</term><term>Resource requirements</term><term>Screw threads</term><term>Selftapping implants</term><term>Sensory changes</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Sulcus</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Surgical technique</term><term>Systema</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Torque control device</term><term>Treatment time</term><term>Upper part</term><term>Zarb</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment connection</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Acrylic fractures</term><term>Acrylic teeth</term><term>Adell</term><term>Antimicrobial treatment</term><term>Application point</term><term>Arch bridges</term><term>Balanced occlusion</term><term>Bone level</term><term>Bone loss</term><term>Bridge insertion</term><term>Bridge removal</term><term>Bridge screws</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Buser</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clinical patient satisfaction</term><term>Clinical registrations plaque</term><term>Comparative randomized study</term><term>Complication</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Deeper periimplant sulcus</term><term>Dental implant system</term><term>Dental implant systema</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Denture</term><term>Denture adjustment</term><term>Different implant systems</term><term>Distal edge</term><term>Early failure</term><term>Edentulism</term><term>Edentulismo mandibular</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous jaws</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Facial implants</term><term>High frequency</term><term>Hollow screw implants</term><term>Hygiene</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant hygiene</term><term>Implant installation</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implant systems table</term><term>Implant treatment</term><term>Implants research</term><term>Important factor</term><term>Inadequate space</term><term>Insertion</term><term>Institut straumann</term><term>International journal</term><term>Karlsson</term><term>Karolinska institute</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Lingual aspects</term><term>Longitudinal</term><term>Longitudinal study</term><term>Mandibular</term><term>Mandibular edentulism</term><term>Mandibular function</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Maximum mouth opening</term><term>Metal framework</term><term>Moberg</term><term>More time</term><term>Mucosa</term><term>Mucosa width</term><term>Mucosal</term><term>Mucosal aspect</term><term>National journal</term><term>Natural teeth</term><term>Nger force</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Nonsubmerged titanium</term><term>Observation period</term><term>Occlusal</term><term>Oral hygiene</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Osseointegrated</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Other implants</term><term>Other resources</term><term>Other studies</term><term>Periimplant</term><term>Periimplant bone loss</term><term>Periimplant infection</term><term>Periimplant mucosa</term><term>Periotest</term><term>Periotest values</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Present study</term><term>Previous reports</term><term>Progressive bone loss</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthesis insertion</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic complications</term><term>Prosthetic procedures</term><term>Prosthodontic parameters</term><term>Prosthodontic procedures</term><term>Radiographic examination</term><term>Resource requirements</term><term>Screw threads</term><term>Selftapping implants</term><term>Sensory changes</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Success rates</term><term>Sulcus</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Surgical technique</term><term>Systema</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Titanium frameworks</term><term>Torque control device</term><term>Treatment time</term><term>Upper part</term><term>Zarb</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark® two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI® one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>mandibular</json:string><json:string>moberg</json:string><json:string>periotest</json:string><json:string>abutment connection</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>periimplant</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>adell</json:string><json:string>lekholm</json:string><json:string>implant installation</json:string><json:string>sulcus</json:string><json:string>buser</json:string><json:string>insertion</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>mucosal</json:string><json:string>karlsson</json:string><json:string>zarb</json:string><json:string>edentulism</json:string><json:string>prosthesis insertion</json:string><json:string>abutment screws</json:string><json:string>surgical procedures</json:string><json:string>systema</json:string><json:string>buccal</json:string><json:string>occlusal</json:string><json:string>plaque accumulation</json:string><json:string>bridge insertion</json:string><json:string>mandibular edentulism</json:string><json:string>bone loss</json:string><json:string>dental implant system</json:string><json:string>hollow screw implants</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>plaque</json:string><json:string>implant systems table</json:string><json:string>acrylic teeth</json:string><json:string>denture adjustment</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>bridge screws</json:string><json:string>prosthetic procedures</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>progressive bone loss</json:string><json:string>surgical technique</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>hygiene</json:string><json:string>longitudinal</json:string><json:string>radiographic examination</json:string><json:string>mucosal aspect</json:string><json:string>nger force</json:string><json:string>treatment time</json:string><json:string>longitudinal study</json:string><json:string>deeper periimplant sulcus</json:string><json:string>bone level</json:string><json:string>periimplant bone loss</json:string><json:string>karolinska institute</json:string><json:string>antimicrobial treatment</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic procedures</json:string><json:string>nonsubmerged titanium</json:string><json:string>other studies</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>dental implant systema</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>mucosa</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>maximum mouth opening</json:string><json:string>bridge removal</json:string><json:string>periimplant mucosa</json:string><json:string>lingual aspects</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>success rate</json:string><json:string>mandibular function</json:string><json:string>sensory changes</json:string><json:string>resource requirements</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>screw threads</json:string><json:string>observation period</json:string><json:string>mucosa width</json:string><json:string>clinical patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>success rates</json:string><json:string>institut straumann</json:string><json:string>acrylic fractures</json:string><json:string>inadequate space</json:string><json:string>metal framework</json:string><json:string>other resources</json:string><json:string>titanium frameworks</json:string><json:string>other implants</json:string><json:string>implant hygiene</json:string><json:string>upper part</json:string><json:string>important factor</json:string><json:string>early failure</json:string><json:string>different implant systems</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic parameters</json:string><json:string>selftapping implants</json:string><json:string>distal edge</json:string><json:string>arch bridges</json:string><json:string>high frequency</json:string><json:string>previous reports</json:string><json:string>periotest values</json:string><json:string>application point</json:string><json:string>implant treatment</json:string><json:string>more time</json:string><json:string>edentulismo mandibular</json:string><json:string>consecutive patients</json:string><json:string>torque control device</json:string><json:string>national journal</json:string><json:string>comparative randomized study</json:string><json:string>balanced occlusion</json:string><json:string>facial implants</json:string><json:string>periimplant infection</json:string><json:string>prosthetic complications</json:string><json:string>edentulous jaws</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>oral hygiene</json:string><json:string>clinical registrations plaque</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Lars‐Erik Moberg</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</json:string><json:string>Correspondence address: *,Department of ProsthodonticsKarolinska InstituteBox 4064S‐141 04HuddingeSwedenTel: +46 8 728 8204Fax: +46 8 711 0988</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Gun‐Britt Sagulin</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Per‐Åke Köndell</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Anders Heimdahl</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Göran W. Gynther</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Anders Bolin</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Brånemark implant system</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ITI Dental Implant System</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>long‐term study</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>mandibular edentulism</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR120504</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-XXWTWRQR-V</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark® two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI® one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.952</score><pdfWordCount>7676</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>51024</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>12</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>246</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1738</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><pmid><json:string>11564104</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>12</volume><issue>5</issue><pages><first>450</first><last>461</last><total>12</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2001</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Huddinge Sweden Tel</json:string><json:string>Clinical Oral Implants Research Brånemark</json:string><json:string>Gynther Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string><json:string>Karolinska Institute, Huddinge Anders Bolin, Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden Correspondence</json:string><json:string>Lars-Erik Moberg Department of Prosthodontics Karolinska Institute Box</json:string><json:string>Quintessence International</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>A.L. Hellem</json:string><json:string>Lars-Erik Moberg</json:string><json:string>The</json:string><json:string>Britt Sagulin</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Lund</json:string><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Toronto</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Lindqvist et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Weber et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. (1981)</json:string><json:string>Naert et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. (1986)</json:string><json:string>Fiorellini et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Albrektsson et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Henry et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>de Grandmont et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Kiyak et al. 1990</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Abrahamsson et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Zarb & Schmitt 1990</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1981, 1986</json:string><json:string>Lindqvist et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Aparicio 1997</json:string><json:string>Johansson & Palmqvist 1990</json:string><json:string>Jönsson & Karlsson 1990</json:string><json:string>Blomberg & Lindqvist 1983</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Salonen et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Albrektsson et al.</json:string><json:string>Mombelli et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Mühlemann & Son 1971</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1994, 1996</json:string><json:string>Jemt 1991</json:string><json:string>Haraldson et al. 1979</json:string><json:string>Moberg et al</json:string><json:string>Brånemark et al. 1977</json:string><json:string>Moberg et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Ellies & Hawker 1993</json:string><json:string>Lekholm et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Weber et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Cox & Zarb 1987</json:string><json:string>Esposito et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Albrektsson 1988</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1981</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Teerlinck et al. 1991</json:string><json:string>Leimola-Virtanen et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>DeBruyn et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Olive & Aparicio 1990</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. (1998)</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-XXWTWRQR-V</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></categories><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2001</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x</json:string></doi><id>AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Brånemark System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> and ITI Dental Implant System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-10"></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">Brånemark System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> and ITI Dental Implant System<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><title level="a" type="sub">A comparative randomized study: 3‐year follow‐up</title><title level="a" type="short">Comparison of two implant systems</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Lars‐Erik</forename><surname>Moberg</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><affiliation>
*Lars‐Erik Moberg,
Department of Prosthodontics
Karolinska Institute
Box 4064
S‐141 04
Huddinge
Sweden
Tel: +46 8 728 8204
Fax: +46 8 711 0988</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Gun‐Britt</forename><surname>Sagulin</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Per‐Åke</forename><surname>Köndell</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Anders</forename><surname>Heimdahl</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Göran W.</forename><surname>Gynther</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Anders</forename><surname>Bolin</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-XXWTWRQR-V</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR120504</idno><idno type="supplier">clr1o642</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR120504.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.2001.12.issue-5</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">12</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="450">450</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="461">461</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">12</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-10"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract:</hi> In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Dans une étude prospective au hasard deux systèmes d’implants dentaires ont été comparés chez 40 patients édentés inférieurs. Ces derniers ont été traités soit par le système <hi rend="italic">ad modum</hi> Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> (BRS) en deux étapes soit par le ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> en une étape. En tout, 102 implants Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> et 106 ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>à vis creuses ont été placés et tous les patients ont été traités avec des bridges complets. Des paramètres biologiques et prothétiques, les complications, les taux de succès, l’efficacité clinique, la satisfaction du patient et les exigences de ressource ont étéévalués. Aucune différence n’a été trouvée dans l’accumulation de plaque dentaire, le saignement et les complications durant le suivi. Le groupe BRS avait un sillon paroïmplantaire plus profond, moins de muqueuse attachée, une plus importante distance bridge‐muqueuse et des valeurs supérieures au Periotest. Les complications prothétiques n’étaient pas en relation avec la configuration des systèmes implantaires. Après trois années, les taux de succès cumulatifs étaient respectivement de 98% et 97% pour les systèmes BRS et ITI. Un implant dans le groupe BRS ne s’était pas ostéointégré au moment de la mise en charge et un autre a été perdu après deux ans dûà une destruction progressive de l’os. Dans le groupe ITI, trois implants ont accusé une perte osseuse progressive après un à trois ans associée à une infection paroïmplantaire. Les 40 bridges étaient intacts et sont restés stables durant toute l’étude. II y avait une satisfaction générale des patients mais environ la moitié des patients BRS avaient trouvé les processus de chirurgie pesants. Le temps de traitement était semblable pour les deux systèmes. Ceux‐ci sont donc valables pour les systèmes implantaires dentaires dans le traitement des patients édentés de la mandibule.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>In dieser Studie wurde bei 40 Patienten die Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer mit einem der beiden Implantatsysteme behandelt, über längere Zeit nachuntersucht und anschliessend verglichen. Die Zuteilung der Patienten zu den Behandlungsgruppen (zweistufiges verdeckt heilendes Brånemarksystem<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> oder einstufiges offen verheilendes ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>‐System) erfolgte zufällig. Alle Patienten wurden nach der Implantation (102 selbstschneidende Brånemarkimplantate und 106 ITI‐Hohlschraubenimplantate) mit totalen Brücken versorgt. Man untersuchte sowohl biologische wie auch prothetische Parameter, Komplikationen, Erfolgsraten, klinische Effizienz, Zufriedenheit der Patienten und Erfüllung der gestellten Anforderungen. Während der gesamten Untersuchungsperiode fand man keine Unterschiede bezüglich Plaqueakkumulation, Blutung und Komplikationen. Die BRS‐Gruppe zeigte tiefere periimplantäre Sulci, weniger angewachsene Schleimhaut, breitere Abstände zwischen Brücke und Schleimhaut und höhere Periotestwerte. Die prothetischen Komplikationen waren unabhängig von der Konfiguration des Implantatsystems. Nach 3 Jahren betrug die kumulative Erfolgsrate 97.9% bei den Brånemarkimplantaten und 96.8% bei den ITI‐Implantaten (Unterschiede waren nicht statistisch signifikant). Ein Implantat der BRS‐Gruppe osseointegrierte bis zur Montage der Sekundärteile nicht und ein anderes ging nach zwei Jahren infolge fortschreitenden Knocheneinbrüchen verloren. In der Gruppe der ITI‐Implantate zeigten drei nach 1–3 Jahren einen fortschreitenden Knochenverlust, verbunden mit einer periimplantären Infektion. Alle 40 Brücken waren unversehrt und blieben im Verlauf der Studie fest. Im Allgemeinen war die Patientenzufriedenheit gross, obwohl sich etwa die Hälfte aller Brånemark‐Patienten schwer taten mit dem ganzen chirurgischen Ablauf. Die Behandlungsdauer war für die beiden Systeme vergleichbar. Man schloss aus der Arbeit, dass die beiden Systeme die momentanen Anforderungen an ein zahnärztliches Implantationssystem bei der Behandlung der Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer erfüllen.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>En un estudio prospectivo aleatorio se compararon dos sistemas de implantes en cuarenta pacientes consecutivos tratados de edentulismo mandibular. Los pacientes se asignaron aleatoriamente para tratamiento con el sistema Brånemark<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> de dos fases (sumergido) o el sistema ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> de una sola fase (no sumergido). En total se instalaron 102 implantes Brånemark y 106 implantes huecos roscados ITI y todos los pacientes fueron tratados con puentes completos. Se evaluaron parámetros biológicos y prostodónticos, complicaciones, indices de éxito, eficacia clinica, satisfacción del paciente y necesidad de recursos. No se encontraron diferencias en acumulación de placa, sangrado, y complicaciones durante el periodo de seguimiento. El grupo BRS mostró un surco periimplantario mas profundo, menos mucosa adherida, una distancia puente‐mucosa mas larga y valores mas altos de periotest. Las complicaciones protésicas no se relacionaron con la configuración del sistema de implantes. Después de tres años el indice acumulativo de éxito fue del 97.9% y 96.8% para los sistemas Brånemark e ITI respectivemente (diferencia estadisticamente no significativa). Un implante del grupo BRS fracasó en la osteointegración en el momento de conexión del pilar, y otro se perdió tras 2 años, debido a destrucción progresiva del hueso. En el grupo ITI tres implantes mostraron perdida progresiva de hueso tras 1–3 años asociada con infección periimplantaria. Todos los 40 puentes estaban intactos y permanecieron estables a lo largo del estudio. Existió una satisfacción general en los pacientes, pero la mitad de los pacientes Brånemark encontraron dificultades en soportar los procedimientos quirúrgicos. El tiempo de tratamiento fue similar en los dos sistemas. Se concluye que los dos sistemas alcanzan los requerimientos exigidos para sistemas de implantes dentales en el tratamiento de edentulismo mandibular.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">Brånemark implant system</term><term xml:id="k3">ITI Dental Implant System</term><term xml:id="k4">long‐term study</term><term xml:id="k5">mandibular edentulism</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/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/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>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10005"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2001.12.issue-5</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="12">12</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="5">5</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2001-10">October 2001</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0045000" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR120504"></id><id type="supplier" value="clr1o642"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="12"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2008-07-07"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2008-07-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="450">450</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="461">461</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>
*<i>Lars‐Erik Moberg</i>,
Department of Prosthodontics
Karolinska Institute
Box 4064
S‐141 04
Huddinge
Sweden
Tel: +46 8 728 8204
Fax: +46 8 711 0988</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR120504.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date: </b> Accepted 18 September 2000</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="14"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="45"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="8252"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="40"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="11"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Brånemark System<sup>®</sup> and ITI Dental Implant System<sup>®</sup> for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><title type="subtitle">A comparative randomized study: 3‐year follow‐up</title><title type="shortAuthors">aMoberg et al</title><title type="short">Comparison of two implant systems</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Lars‐Erik</givenNames><familyName>Moberg</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Gun‐Britt</givenNames><familyName>Sagulin</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Per‐Åke</givenNames><familyName>Köndell</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Anders</givenNames><familyName>Heimdahl</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Göran W.</givenNames><familyName>Gynther</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Anders</givenNames><familyName>Bolin</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">Brånemark implant system</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">ITI Dental Implant System</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">long‐term study</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">mandibular edentulism</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract:</b> In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark<sup>®</sup> two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI<sup>®</sup> one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Dans une étude prospective au hasard deux systèmes d’implants dentaires ont été comparés chez 40 patients édentés inférieurs. Ces derniers ont été traités soit par le système <i>ad modum</i> Brånemark<sup>®</sup> (BRS) en deux étapes soit par le ITI<sup>®</sup> en une étape. En tout, 102 implants Brånemark<sup>®</sup> et 106 ITI<sup>®</sup>à vis creuses ont été placés et tous les patients ont été traités avec des bridges complets. Des paramètres biologiques et prothétiques, les complications, les taux de succès, l’efficacité clinique, la satisfaction du patient et les exigences de ressource ont étéévalués. Aucune différence n’a été trouvée dans l’accumulation de plaque dentaire, le saignement et les complications durant le suivi. Le groupe BRS avait un sillon paroïmplantaire plus profond, moins de muqueuse attachée, une plus importante distance bridge‐muqueuse et des valeurs supérieures au Periotest. Les complications prothétiques n’étaient pas en relation avec la configuration des systèmes implantaires. Après trois années, les taux de succès cumulatifs étaient respectivement de 98% et 97% pour les systèmes BRS et ITI. Un implant dans le groupe BRS ne s’était pas ostéointégré au moment de la mise en charge et un autre a été perdu après deux ans dûà une destruction progressive de l’os. Dans le groupe ITI, trois implants ont accusé une perte osseuse progressive après un à trois ans associée à une infection paroïmplantaire. Les 40 bridges étaient intacts et sont restés stables durant toute l’étude. II y avait une satisfaction générale des patients mais environ la moitié des patients BRS avaient trouvé les processus de chirurgie pesants. Le temps de traitement était semblable pour les deux systèmes. Ceux‐ci sont donc valables pour les systèmes implantaires dentaires dans le traitement des patients édentés de la mandibule.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>In dieser Studie wurde bei 40 Patienten die Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer mit einem der beiden Implantatsysteme behandelt, über längere Zeit nachuntersucht und anschliessend verglichen. Die Zuteilung der Patienten zu den Behandlungsgruppen (zweistufiges verdeckt heilendes Brånemarksystem<sup>®</sup> oder einstufiges offen verheilendes ITI<sup>®</sup>‐System) erfolgte zufällig. Alle Patienten wurden nach der Implantation (102 selbstschneidende Brånemarkimplantate und 106 ITI‐Hohlschraubenimplantate) mit totalen Brücken versorgt. Man untersuchte sowohl biologische wie auch prothetische Parameter, Komplikationen, Erfolgsraten, klinische Effizienz, Zufriedenheit der Patienten und Erfüllung der gestellten Anforderungen. Während der gesamten Untersuchungsperiode fand man keine Unterschiede bezüglich Plaqueakkumulation, Blutung und Komplikationen. Die BRS‐Gruppe zeigte tiefere periimplantäre Sulci, weniger angewachsene Schleimhaut, breitere Abstände zwischen Brücke und Schleimhaut und höhere Periotestwerte. Die prothetischen Komplikationen waren unabhängig von der Konfiguration des Implantatsystems. Nach 3 Jahren betrug die kumulative Erfolgsrate 97.9% bei den Brånemarkimplantaten und 96.8% bei den ITI‐Implantaten (Unterschiede waren nicht statistisch signifikant). Ein Implantat der BRS‐Gruppe osseointegrierte bis zur Montage der Sekundärteile nicht und ein anderes ging nach zwei Jahren infolge fortschreitenden Knocheneinbrüchen verloren. In der Gruppe der ITI‐Implantate zeigten drei nach 1–3 Jahren einen fortschreitenden Knochenverlust, verbunden mit einer periimplantären Infektion. Alle 40 Brücken waren unversehrt und blieben im Verlauf der Studie fest. Im Allgemeinen war die Patientenzufriedenheit gross, obwohl sich etwa die Hälfte aller Brånemark‐Patienten schwer taten mit dem ganzen chirurgischen Ablauf. Die Behandlungsdauer war für die beiden Systeme vergleichbar. Man schloss aus der Arbeit, dass die beiden Systeme die momentanen Anforderungen an ein zahnärztliches Implantationssystem bei der Behandlung der Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer erfüllen.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>En un estudio prospectivo aleatorio se compararon dos sistemas de implantes en cuarenta pacientes consecutivos tratados de edentulismo mandibular. Los pacientes se asignaron aleatoriamente para tratamiento con el sistema Brånemark<sup>®</sup> de dos fases (sumergido) o el sistema ITI<sup>®</sup> de una sola fase (no sumergido). En total se instalaron 102 implantes Brånemark y 106 implantes huecos roscados ITI y todos los pacientes fueron tratados con puentes completos. Se evaluaron parámetros biológicos y prostodónticos, complicaciones, indices de éxito, eficacia clinica, satisfacción del paciente y necesidad de recursos. No se encontraron diferencias en acumulación de placa, sangrado, y complicaciones durante el periodo de seguimiento. El grupo BRS mostró un surco periimplantario mas profundo, menos mucosa adherida, una distancia puente‐mucosa mas larga y valores mas altos de periotest. Las complicaciones protésicas no se relacionaron con la configuración del sistema de implantes. Después de tres años el indice acumulativo de éxito fue del 97.9% y 96.8% para los sistemas Brånemark e ITI respectivemente (diferencia estadisticamente no significativa). Un implante del grupo BRS fracasó en la osteointegración en el momento de conexión del pilar, y otro se perdió tras 2 años, debido a destrucción progresiva del hueso. En el grupo ITI tres implantes mostraron perdida progresiva de hueso tras 1–3 años asociada con infección periimplantaria. Todos los 40 puentes estaban intactos y permanecieron estables a lo largo del estudio. Existió una satisfacción general en los pacientes, pero la mitad de los pacientes Brånemark encontraron dificultades en soportar los procedimientos quirúrgicos. El tiempo de tratamiento fue similar en los dos sistemas. Se concluye que los dos sistemas alcanzan los requerimientos exigidos para sistemas de implantes dentales en el tratamiento de edentulismo mandibular.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title><subTitle>A comparative randomized study: 3‐year follow‐up</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Comparison of two implant systems</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lars‐Erik</namePart><namePart type="family">Moberg</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><affiliation>Correspondence address: *,Department of ProsthodonticsKarolinska InstituteBox 4064S‐141 04HuddingeSwedenTel: +46 8 728 8204Fax: +46 8 711 0988</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Gun‐Britt</namePart><namePart type="family">Sagulin</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Per‐Åke</namePart><namePart type="family">Köndell</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Anders</namePart><namePart type="family">Heimdahl</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Göran W.</namePart><namePart type="family">Gynther</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Anders</namePart><namePart type="family">Bolin</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Radiology, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2001-10</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 18 September 2000</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2001</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">14</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">45</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">11</extent><extent unit="words">8252</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark® two‐stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI® one‐stage (non‐submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow‐up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge‐mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1–3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Dans une étude prospective au hasard deux systèmes d’implants dentaires ont été comparés chez 40 patients édentés inférieurs. Ces derniers ont été traités soit par le système ad modum Brånemark® (BRS) en deux étapes soit par le ITI® en une étape. En tout, 102 implants Brånemark® et 106 ITI®à vis creuses ont été placés et tous les patients ont été traités avec des bridges complets. Des paramètres biologiques et prothétiques, les complications, les taux de succès, l’efficacité clinique, la satisfaction du patient et les exigences de ressource ont étéévalués. Aucune différence n’a été trouvée dans l’accumulation de plaque dentaire, le saignement et les complications durant le suivi. Le groupe BRS avait un sillon paroïmplantaire plus profond, moins de muqueuse attachée, une plus importante distance bridge‐muqueuse et des valeurs supérieures au Periotest. Les complications prothétiques n’étaient pas en relation avec la configuration des systèmes implantaires. Après trois années, les taux de succès cumulatifs étaient respectivement de 98% et 97% pour les systèmes BRS et ITI. Un implant dans le groupe BRS ne s’était pas ostéointégré au moment de la mise en charge et un autre a été perdu après deux ans dûà une destruction progressive de l’os. Dans le groupe ITI, trois implants ont accusé une perte osseuse progressive après un à trois ans associée à une infection paroïmplantaire. Les 40 bridges étaient intacts et sont restés stables durant toute l’étude. II y avait une satisfaction générale des patients mais environ la moitié des patients BRS avaient trouvé les processus de chirurgie pesants. Le temps de traitement était semblable pour les deux systèmes. Ceux‐ci sont donc valables pour les systèmes implantaires dentaires dans le traitement des patients édentés de la mandibule.</abstract><abstract lang="de">In dieser Studie wurde bei 40 Patienten die Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer mit einem der beiden Implantatsysteme behandelt, über längere Zeit nachuntersucht und anschliessend verglichen. Die Zuteilung der Patienten zu den Behandlungsgruppen (zweistufiges verdeckt heilendes Brånemarksystem® oder einstufiges offen verheilendes ITI®‐System) erfolgte zufällig. Alle Patienten wurden nach der Implantation (102 selbstschneidende Brånemarkimplantate und 106 ITI‐Hohlschraubenimplantate) mit totalen Brücken versorgt. Man untersuchte sowohl biologische wie auch prothetische Parameter, Komplikationen, Erfolgsraten, klinische Effizienz, Zufriedenheit der Patienten und Erfüllung der gestellten Anforderungen. Während der gesamten Untersuchungsperiode fand man keine Unterschiede bezüglich Plaqueakkumulation, Blutung und Komplikationen. Die BRS‐Gruppe zeigte tiefere periimplantäre Sulci, weniger angewachsene Schleimhaut, breitere Abstände zwischen Brücke und Schleimhaut und höhere Periotestwerte. Die prothetischen Komplikationen waren unabhängig von der Konfiguration des Implantatsystems. Nach 3 Jahren betrug die kumulative Erfolgsrate 97.9% bei den Brånemarkimplantaten und 96.8% bei den ITI‐Implantaten (Unterschiede waren nicht statistisch signifikant). Ein Implantat der BRS‐Gruppe osseointegrierte bis zur Montage der Sekundärteile nicht und ein anderes ging nach zwei Jahren infolge fortschreitenden Knocheneinbrüchen verloren. In der Gruppe der ITI‐Implantate zeigten drei nach 1–3 Jahren einen fortschreitenden Knochenverlust, verbunden mit einer periimplantären Infektion. Alle 40 Brücken waren unversehrt und blieben im Verlauf der Studie fest. Im Allgemeinen war die Patientenzufriedenheit gross, obwohl sich etwa die Hälfte aller Brånemark‐Patienten schwer taten mit dem ganzen chirurgischen Ablauf. Die Behandlungsdauer war für die beiden Systeme vergleichbar. Man schloss aus der Arbeit, dass die beiden Systeme die momentanen Anforderungen an ein zahnärztliches Implantationssystem bei der Behandlung der Zahnlosigkeit im Unterkiefer erfüllen.</abstract><abstract lang="es">En un estudio prospectivo aleatorio se compararon dos sistemas de implantes en cuarenta pacientes consecutivos tratados de edentulismo mandibular. Los pacientes se asignaron aleatoriamente para tratamiento con el sistema Brånemark® de dos fases (sumergido) o el sistema ITI® de una sola fase (no sumergido). En total se instalaron 102 implantes Brånemark y 106 implantes huecos roscados ITI y todos los pacientes fueron tratados con puentes completos. Se evaluaron parámetros biológicos y prostodónticos, complicaciones, indices de éxito, eficacia clinica, satisfacción del paciente y necesidad de recursos. No se encontraron diferencias en acumulación de placa, sangrado, y complicaciones durante el periodo de seguimiento. El grupo BRS mostró un surco periimplantario mas profundo, menos mucosa adherida, una distancia puente‐mucosa mas larga y valores mas altos de periotest. Las complicaciones protésicas no se relacionaron con la configuración del sistema de implantes. Después de tres años el indice acumulativo de éxito fue del 97.9% y 96.8% para los sistemas Brånemark e ITI respectivemente (diferencia estadisticamente no significativa). Un implante del grupo BRS fracasó en la osteointegración en el momento de conexión del pilar, y otro se perdió tras 2 años, debido a destrucción progresiva del hueso. En el grupo ITI tres implantes mostraron perdida progresiva de hueso tras 1–3 años asociada con infección periimplantaria. Todos los 40 puentes estaban intactos y permanecieron estables a lo largo del estudio. Existió una satisfacción general en los pacientes, pero la mitad de los pacientes Brånemark encontraron dificultades en soportar los procedimientos quirúrgicos. El tiempo de tratamiento fue similar en los dos sistemas. Se concluye que los dos sistemas alcanzan los requerimientos exigidos para sistemas de implantes dentales en el tratamiento de edentulismo mandibular.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>Brånemark implant system</topic><topic>ITI Dental Implant System</topic><topic>long‐term study</topic><topic>mandibular edentulism</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>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>12</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>450</start><end>461</end><total>12</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-XXWTWRQR-V</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR120504</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/AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE/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 005733 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005733 | 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:AEFC4C9160D38023CEAB66F55F10E19F50F95CEE
|texte= Brånemark System® and ITI Dental Implant System® for treatment of mandibular edentulism
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |