A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems
Identifieur interne : 007536 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007535; suivant : 007537A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems
Auteurs : Daniel Van Steenberghe ; Greet De Mars ; Marc Quirynen ; Reinhilde Jacobs ; Ignace NaertSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2000-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment surgery, Arztliche implantologie, Astra, Astra implants, Astra tech, Basal bone, Baseline, Bone quality, Bone quantity, Cancellous bone, Catholic university, Clinical picture, Compact bone, Cumulative success rates, Different implant, Different implant surfaces, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous mandibles, Edentulous patients, Endosseous implants, Hard tissues, Implant, Implant lengths, Implant surgery, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, International journal, Lekholm, Long terme, Lower jaws, Machined, Machined surface, Machined surface irregularities, Machined surfaces, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial surgery, More years, Niveau osseux, Nobel biocare, Osseointegrated implants, Patient selection, Periodontal parameters, Plaque, Plaque accumulation, Pocket depth, Prospective multicenter study, Prospective study, Prosthesis, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic point, Pure titanium, Pure titanium implant systems, Same patient, Same sites, Selftapping, Selftapping implants, Selftapping mark, Steenberghe, Success rate, Surface roughening, Surgery time, Thin layer, Titanium, Upper jaws astra, Zahnarztliche implantologie.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment surgery, Arztliche implantologie, Astra, Astra implants, Astra tech, Basal bone, Baseline, Bone quality, Bone quantity, Cancellous bone, Catholic university, Clinical picture, Compact bone, Cumulative success rates, Different implant, Different implant surfaces, Edentulous, Edentulous mandible, Edentulous mandibles, Edentulous patients, Endosseous implants, Hard tissues, Implant, Implant lengths, Implant surgery, Implant system, Implant systems, Implants research, International journal, Lekholm, Long terme, Lower jaws, Machined, Machined surface, Machined surface irregularities, Machined surfaces, Marginal bone level, Marginal bone loss, Maxillofacial, Maxillofacial implants, Maxillofacial surgery, More years, Niveau osseux, Nobel biocare, Osseointegrated implants, Patient selection, Periodontal parameters, Plaque, Plaque accumulation, Pocket depth, Prospective multicenter study, Prospective study, Prosthesis, Prosthetic, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthetic point, Pure titanium, Pure titanium implant systems, Same patient, Same sites, Selftapping, Selftapping implants, Selftapping mark, Steenberghe, Success rate, Surface roughening, Surgery time, Thin layer, Titanium, Upper jaws astra, Zahnarztliche implantologie.
Abstract
Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO2‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title><author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, Daniel" sort="Van Steenberghe, Daniel" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="Daniel" last="Van Steenberghe">Daniel Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="De Mars, Greet" sort="De Mars, Greet" uniqKey="De Mars G" first="Greet" last="De Mars">Greet De Mars</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jacobs, Reinhilde" sort="Jacobs, Reinhilde" uniqKey="Jacobs R" first="Reinhilde" last="Jacobs">Reinhilde Jacobs</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, Ignace" sort="Naert, Ignace" uniqKey="Naert I" first="Ignace" last="Naert">Ignace Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007536</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007536</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title><author><name sortKey="Van Steenberghe, Daniel" sort="Van Steenberghe, Daniel" uniqKey="Van Steenberghe D" first="Daniel" last="Van Steenberghe">Daniel Van Steenberghe</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="De Mars, Greet" sort="De Mars, Greet" uniqKey="De Mars G" first="Greet" last="De Mars">Greet De Mars</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Quirynen, Marc" sort="Quirynen, Marc" uniqKey="Quirynen M" first="Marc" last="Quirynen">Marc Quirynen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jacobs, Reinhilde" sort="Jacobs, Reinhilde" uniqKey="Jacobs R" first="Reinhilde" last="Jacobs">Reinhilde Jacobs</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, Ignace" sort="Naert, Ignace" uniqKey="Naert I" first="Ignace" last="Naert">Ignace Naert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</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">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="202">202</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="209">209</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06">2000-06</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 surgery</term><term>Arztliche implantologie</term><term>Astra</term><term>Astra implants</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Basal bone</term><term>Baseline</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Bone quantity</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Catholic university</term><term>Clinical picture</term><term>Compact bone</term><term>Cumulative success rates</term><term>Different implant</term><term>Different implant surfaces</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous mandibles</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Hard tissues</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant lengths</term><term>Implant surgery</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Long terme</term><term>Lower jaws</term><term>Machined</term><term>Machined surface</term><term>Machined surface irregularities</term><term>Machined surfaces</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>More years</term><term>Niveau osseux</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Patient selection</term><term>Periodontal parameters</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Pocket depth</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic point</term><term>Pure titanium</term><term>Pure titanium implant systems</term><term>Same patient</term><term>Same sites</term><term>Selftapping</term><term>Selftapping implants</term><term>Selftapping mark</term><term>Steenberghe</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Surface roughening</term><term>Surgery time</term><term>Thin layer</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Upper jaws astra</term><term>Zahnarztliche implantologie</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment surgery</term><term>Arztliche implantologie</term><term>Astra</term><term>Astra implants</term><term>Astra tech</term><term>Basal bone</term><term>Baseline</term><term>Bone quality</term><term>Bone quantity</term><term>Cancellous bone</term><term>Catholic university</term><term>Clinical picture</term><term>Compact bone</term><term>Cumulative success rates</term><term>Different implant</term><term>Different implant surfaces</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous mandible</term><term>Edentulous mandibles</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Endosseous implants</term><term>Hard tissues</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant lengths</term><term>Implant surgery</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implant systems</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Lekholm</term><term>Long terme</term><term>Lower jaws</term><term>Machined</term><term>Machined surface</term><term>Machined surface irregularities</term><term>Machined surfaces</term><term>Marginal bone level</term><term>Marginal bone loss</term><term>Maxillofacial</term><term>Maxillofacial implants</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>More years</term><term>Niveau osseux</term><term>Nobel biocare</term><term>Osseointegrated implants</term><term>Patient selection</term><term>Periodontal parameters</term><term>Plaque</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Pocket depth</term><term>Prospective multicenter study</term><term>Prospective study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthetic</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthetic point</term><term>Pure titanium</term><term>Pure titanium implant systems</term><term>Same patient</term><term>Same sites</term><term>Selftapping</term><term>Selftapping implants</term><term>Selftapping mark</term><term>Steenberghe</term><term>Success rate</term><term>Surface roughening</term><term>Surgery time</term><term>Thin layer</term><term>Titanium</term><term>Upper jaws astra</term><term>Zahnarztliche implantologie</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO2‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>steenberghe</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>marginal bone level</json:string><json:string>machined</json:string><json:string>astra</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial</json:string><json:string>implant systems</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>selftapping</json:string><json:string>prosthetic</json:string><json:string>lekholm</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial implants</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>astra tech</json:string><json:string>nobel biocare</json:string><json:string>baseline</json:string><json:string>pure titanium</json:string><json:string>machined surface</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandible</json:string><json:string>implant lengths</json:string><json:string>catholic university</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>marginal bone loss</json:string><json:string>periodontal parameters</json:string><json:string>osseointegrated implants</json:string><json:string>abutment surgery</json:string><json:string>endosseous implants</json:string><json:string>bone quantity</json:string><json:string>plaque</json:string><json:string>titanium</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>implant surgery</json:string><json:string>surgery time</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>same sites</json:string><json:string>pocket depth</json:string><json:string>lower jaws</json:string><json:string>different implant surfaces</json:string><json:string>upper jaws astra</json:string><json:string>clinical picture</json:string><json:string>bone quality</json:string><json:string>basal bone</json:string><json:string>compact bone</json:string><json:string>thin layer</json:string><json:string>cancellous bone</json:string><json:string>hard tissues</json:string><json:string>astra implants</json:string><json:string>success rate</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>patient selection</json:string><json:string>surface roughening</json:string><json:string>same patient</json:string><json:string>prospective multicenter study</json:string><json:string>more years</json:string><json:string>machined surfaces</json:string><json:string>prosthetic point</json:string><json:string>long terme</json:string><json:string>niveau osseux</json:string><json:string>cumulative success rates</json:string><json:string>machined surface irregularities</json:string><json:string>edentulous mandibles</json:string><json:string>selftapping mark</json:string><json:string>selftapping implants</json:string><json:string>different implant</json:string><json:string>pure titanium implant systems</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>zahnarztliche implantologie</json:string><json:string>arztliche implantologie</json:string><json:string>plaque accumulation</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Daniel Van Steenberghe</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</json:string><json:string>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Greet De Mars</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Marc Quirynen</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Reinhilde Jacobs</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ignace Naert</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant systems</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>surface roughness</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>marginal bone‐level</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>clr9o513</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-TRL5MCKN-T</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO2‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.617</score><pdfWordCount>4373</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>27389</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 794 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>187</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1286</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title><pmid><json:string>11168211</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>11</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>202</first><last>209</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2000</json:string><json:string>two</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Astra Tech Co</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Kapucijnenvoer</json:string><json:string>Belgium Fax</json:string><json:string>Catholic University</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry</json:string><json:string>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Key</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>I. Brånemark</json:string><json:string>Marc Quirynen</json:string><json:string>A. Holmen</json:string><json:string>The</json:string><json:string>G. Maffei</json:string><json:string>Ignace Naert</json:string><json:string>D. van Steenberghe</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Helsinki</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Leuven</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Lekholm and Zarb 1985</json:string><json:string>Bradley 1968</json:string><json:string>van Steenberghe et al. 1987</json:string><json:string>Versteegh et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Block et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Jemt 1994</json:string><json:string>Flemming et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Spiekerman et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Naert et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Buser et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>van Steenberghe 1997</json:string><json:string>Schramm-Schrerer et al. 1989</json:string><json:string>Dietrich et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Hansson 1997</json:string><json:string>Lekholm et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Arvidson et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Quirynen et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Arvidson et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Gotfredsen et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Lindquist et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>van Steenberghe et al.</json:string><json:string>Esposito et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Isidor 1997</json:string><json:string>Adell et al. 1981</json:string><json:string>Babbush et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Ericsson et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>SchrammSchrerer et al. 1989</json:string><json:string>Røynesdal et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Wennerberg 1996</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-TRL5MCKN-T</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>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x</json:string></doi><id>EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</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="2000-06"></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">A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title><title level="a" type="short">Astra‐tech versus Brånemark implant</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Daniel</forename><surname>Steenberghe</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><affiliation>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Greet</forename><surname>Mars</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Marc</forename><surname>Quirynen</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Reinhilde</forename><surname>Jacobs</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Ignace</forename><surname>Naert</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-TRL5MCKN-T</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x</idno><idno type="supplier">clr9o513</idno><idno type="unit">CLR11003202</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR11003202.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.2000.11.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="202">202</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="209">209</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">8</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="subscript">2</hi><:t>Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO</:t><:t>‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.</:t></p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">implant systems</term><term xml:id="k2">surface roughness</term><term xml:id="k3">marginal bone‐level</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Article</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/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/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="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2000.11.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="11">11</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-06">June 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0020200" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x</doi><idGroup><id type="supplier" value="clr9o513"></id><id type="unit" value="CLR11003202"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2001-12-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2001-12-25"></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="202">202</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="209">209</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Prof. Dr D. van Steenberghe, Catholic University Leuven, Department of Periodontology, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B‐3000 Leuven, Belgium
Fax: +32 16 33 24 84
</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR11003202.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 15 June 1999</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5340"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title><title type="shortAuthors">van Steenberghe et al.</title><title type="short">Astra‐tech versus Brånemark implant</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1 #a2"><personName><givenNames>Daniel</givenNames><familyNamePrefix>Van</familyNamePrefix><familyName>
Steenberghe
</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Greet</givenNames><familyNamePrefix>De </familyNamePrefix><familyName>
Mars
</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Marc</givenNames><familyName>Quirynen</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Reinhilde</givenNames><familyName>Jacobs</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Ignace</givenNames><familyName>Naert</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">implant systems</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">surface roughness</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">marginal bone‐level</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO<sub>2</sub>‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Astra‐tech versus Brånemark implant</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Steenberghe</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><affiliation>Holder of The P.‐I. Brånemark Chair in Osseointegration, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Greet</namePart><namePart type="family">De Mars</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Marc</namePart><namePart type="family">Quirynen</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Reinhilde</namePart><namePart type="family">Jacobs</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ignace</namePart><namePart type="family">Naert</namePart><affiliation>Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</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">2000-06</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 15 June 1999</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">0</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">0</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5340</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Clinical data indicate different medium and long‐term outcomes of endosseous implants for different implant configurations and in particular implant surfaces. The present study compares 2 very similar implant systems but with different surface characteristics in a split‐mouth‐randomized design. The Astra‐Tech (A) system (Astra‐Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) consisted of selftapping TiO2‐blasted screw‐shaped implants made of commercially pure titanium, and the Brånemark (B) System (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden) comprised selftapping Mark II implants with machined surface irregularities. Throughout the 2‐years' observation period, no significant differences could be found concerning probing depths, presence of plaque or change in marginal bone level. A statistically significant difference in location of the marginal bone level in relation to the shoulder of the implant was found in favor of the A system both at baseline and after 2 years. Cumulative success rates of 100% (A) and 97.7% (B) were not statistically different. From a prosthetic point of view, more soldering points were needed for A compared to B to reach clinical acceptable fit. More years of observation are needed to compare the fate of the soft and hard tissues surrounding two different implant surfaces.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>implant systems</topic><topic>surface roughness</topic><topic>marginal bone‐level</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>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>11</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>202</start><end>209</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-TRL5MCKN-T</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">clr9o513</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/EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037/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 007536 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007536 | 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:EC9A8B6A1141DBA3B1DFBA2DB7CFA9F03DAE1037
|texte= A prospective split‐mouth comparative study of two screw‐shaped self‐tapping pure titanium implant systems
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |