Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.
Identifieur interne : 007145 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007144; suivant : 007146Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.
Auteurs : H. De Bruyn ; B. Collaert ; U. Lindén ; A. L. BjörnSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 1997-08.
Abstract
In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (<4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, H" sort="De Bruyn, H" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="H." last="De Bruyn">H. De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, B" sort="Collaert, B" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="B." last="Collaert">B. Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, U" sort="Linden, U" uniqKey="Linden U" first="U." last="Lindén">U. Lindén</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bjorn, A L" sort="Bjorn, A L" uniqKey="Bjorn A" first="A. L." last="Björn">A. L. Björn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171</idno><date when="1997" year="1997">1997</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007145</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007145</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, H" sort="De Bruyn, H" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="H." last="De Bruyn">H. De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, B" sort="Collaert, B" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="B." last="Collaert">B. Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, U" sort="Linden, U" uniqKey="Linden U" first="U." last="Lindén">U. Lindén</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bjorn, A L" sort="Bjorn, A L" uniqKey="Bjorn A" first="A. L." last="Björn">A. L. Björn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="265">265</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="271">271</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1997-08">1997-08</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (<4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>H. De Bruyn</name><affiliations><json:string>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B. Collaert</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>U. Lindén</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>A. L. Björn</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant survival</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>patient opinion</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>denture satisfaction</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR080403</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-CGS7MK1G-7</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (>4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>4.618</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>564 x 779 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>214</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1465</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><pmid><json:string>9586472</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>8</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>265</first><last>271</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1997</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-CGS7MK1G-7</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1997</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x</json:string></doi><id>E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1997-08"></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">Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><title level="a" type="short">Rehabilitation on Brånemark implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">H.</forename><surname>De Bruyn</surname></persName><affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">B.</forename><surname>Collaert</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">U.</forename><surname>Lindén</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">A. L.</forename><surname>Björn</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-CGS7MK1G-7</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR080403</idno><idno type="supplier"></idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR080403.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.1997.8.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="265">265</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="271">271</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1997-08"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (<4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">implant survival</term><term xml:id="k3">patient opinion</term><term xml:id="k4">denture satisfaction</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="08004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.1997.8.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="8">8</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1997-08">August 1997</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0026500" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR080403"></id><id type="supplier" value=""></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="265">265</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="271">271</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>H. de Bruyn, Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Basilieklaan 373/14, 1081 Brussels, Belgium</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR080403.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 17 October 1996</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title><title type="shortAuthors">Haas et al.</title><title type="short">Rehabilitation on Brånemark implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>H.</givenNames><familyName>De Bruyn</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>B.</givenNames><familyName>Collaert</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>U.</givenNames><familyName>Lindén</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>A. L.</givenNames><familyName>Björn</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">implant survival</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">patient opinion</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">denture satisfaction</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (<4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Rehabilitation on Brånemark implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H.</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><affiliation>Center for Periodontology and Implantology Brussels, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Collaert</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">U.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lindén</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthodontics, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A. L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Björn</namePart><affiliation>Department of Community Dentistry, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1997-08</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 17 October 1996</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1997</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">In this study, patient opinion on oral rehabilitation by means of Brånemark implants was investigated. All patients were referred to a periodontal clinic for implant installation and treated by one and the same operator. Prosthetic restorations were performed by dentists, who had no previous experience with prostheses on implants, but had completed a postgraduate training course. Patient opinion was obtained through questionnaires, pertaining to satisfaction and oral function. A comparison was made between pre‐implant situation, short‐term (<4 months) and long‐term functioning )3 years( with the implant‐restorative rehabilitation. In total, 61 patients participated in the study; 23 received a full lower arch bridge and 18 a full upper arch bridge, while 20 patients got partial bridges. Of 298 installed implants, 7 failed at abutment connection (2.3%) and 1 during the 3‐year follow‐up interval (0.3%). The study results indicated that a great majority of patients were very satisfied with the treatment. Comfort with eating, aesthetics, phonetics and overall satisfaction improved significantly and nearly all patients said that they would undergo the treatment again or recommend it to others. Patients experienced their implants as “natural” teeth. The conclusion is that rehabilitation ad modum Brånemark, even in the hands of non‐specialized dentists, can be of high quality, improving oral function and satisfying the needs and demands of patients.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>implant survival</topic><topic>patient opinion</topic><topic>denture satisfaction</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>1997</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>8</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>265</start><end>271</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-CGS7MK1G-7</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080403.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR080403</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/E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171/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 007145 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007145 | 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:E4482BD28F897DA833F14BBEDD2A28D7814AB171
|texte= Patient's opinion and treatment outcome of fixed rehabilitation on Brinemark implants. A 3‐year follow‐up study in private dental practices.
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |