EdenteV2, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 000272

Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla

Identifieur interne : 000272 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000271; suivant : 000273

Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla

Auteurs : France E. Lambert ; Hans-Peter Weber ; Srinivas M. Susarla ; Urs C. Belser ; German O. Gallucci

Source :

Journal of periodontology [ 0022-3492 ] ; 2009.

RBID : Pascal:09-0358614

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Edentation, Prothèse, Implant, Pronostic, Survie, Maxillaire, Dent, Mâchoire, Revue bibliographique, Dentisterie.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Bibliographic review, Dentistry, Edentulousness, Implant, Jaw, Maxillary, Prognosis, Prosthesis, Survival, Tooth.

Abstract

Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 0022-3492`
A03		`1`		`@0 J. periodontol.`
A05				`@2 80`
A06				`@2 8`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 LAMBERT (France E.)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 WEBER (Hans-Peter)`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 SUSARLA (Srinivas M.)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 BELSER (Urs C.)`
A11	`05`	`1`		`@1 GALLUCCI (German O.)`
A14	`01`			`@1 Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University @2 Boston, MA @3 USA @Z 1 aut. @Z 2 aut. @Z 5 aut.`
A14	`02`			`@1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital @2 Boston, MA @3 USA @Z 3 aut.`
A14	`03`			`@1 Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva @2 Geneva @3 CHE @Z 4 aut.`
A20				`@1 1220-1230`
A21				`@1 2009`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 874 @5 354000172584020030`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2009 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 76 ref.`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 09-0358614`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 Journal of periodontology`
A66	`01`			`@0 USA`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.
C02	`01`	`X`		`@0 002B10C02`
C02	`02`	`X`		`@0 002B25I`
C03	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Edentation @5 01`
C03	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Edentulousness @5 01`
C03	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Edentación @5 01`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Prothèse @5 04`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Prosthesis @5 04`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Prótesis @5 04`
C03	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Implant @5 07`
C03	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Implant @5 07`
C03	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Implante @5 07`
C03	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Pronostic @5 08`
C03	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Prognosis @5 08`
C03	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Pronóstico @5 08`
C03	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Survie @5 09`
C03	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Survival @5 09`
C03	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Sobrevivencia @5 09`
C03	`06`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Maxillaire @5 13`
C03	`06`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Maxillary @5 13`
C03	`06`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Maxilar @5 13`
C03	`07`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Dent @5 14`
C03	`07`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Tooth @5 14`
C03	`07`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Diente @5 14`
C03	`08`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Mâchoire @5 15`
C03	`08`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Jaw @5 15`
C03	`08`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Maxilar @5 15`
C03	`09`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Revue bibliographique @5 16`
C03	`09`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Bibliographic review @5 16`
C03	`09`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Revista bibliográfica @5 16`
C03	`10`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Dentisterie @5 30`
C03	`10`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Dentistry @5 30`
C03	`10`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Odontología @5 30`
C07	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Pathologie dentaire @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Dental disease @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Diente patología @5 37`
C07	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Stomatologie @5 38`
C07	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Stomatology @5 38`
C07	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Estomatología @5 38`
N21				`@1 257`
N44	`01`			`@1 OTO`
N82				`@1 OTO`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 09-0358614 INIST
ET :	Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla
AU :	LAMBERT (France E.); WEBER (Hans-Peter); SUSARLA (Srinivas M.); BELSER (Urs C.); GALLUCCI (German O.)
AF :	Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University/Boston, MA/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 5 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital/Boston, MA/Etats-Unis (3 aut.); Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva/Geneva/Suisse (4 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	Journal of periodontology; ISSN 0022-3492; Etats-Unis; Da. 2009; Vol. 80; No. 8; Pp. 1220-1230; Bibl. 76 ref.
LA :	Anglais
EA :	Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.
CC :	002B10C02; 002B25I
FD :	Edentation; Prothèse; Implant; Pronostic; Survie; Maxillaire; Dent; Mâchoire; Revue bibliographique; Dentisterie
FG :	Pathologie dentaire; Stomatologie
ED :	Edentulousness; Prosthesis; Implant; Prognosis; Survival; Maxillary; Tooth; Jaw; Bibliographic review; Dentistry
EG :	Dental disease; Stomatology
SD :	Edentación; Prótesis; Implante; Pronóstico; Sobrevivencia; Maxilar; Diente; Maxilar; Revista bibliográfica; Odontología
LO :	INIST-874.354000172584020030
ID :	09-0358614

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:09-0358614

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla</title>
<author><name sortKey="Lambert, France E" sort="Lambert, France E" uniqKey="Lambert F" first="France E." last="Lambert">France E. Lambert</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Weber, Hans Peter" sort="Weber, Hans Peter" uniqKey="Weber H" first="Hans-Peter" last="Weber">Hans-Peter Weber</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Susarla, Srinivas M" sort="Susarla, Srinivas M" uniqKey="Susarla S" first="Srinivas M." last="Susarla">Srinivas M. Susarla</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Belser, Urs C" sort="Belser, Urs C" uniqKey="Belser U" first="Urs C." last="Belser">Urs C. Belser</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva</s1>
<s2>Geneva</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gallucci, German O" sort="Gallucci, German O" uniqKey="Gallucci G" first="German O." last="Gallucci">German O. Gallucci</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">09-0358614</idno>
<date when="2009">2009</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 09-0358614 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:09-0358614</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000272</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla</title>
<author><name sortKey="Lambert, France E" sort="Lambert, France E" uniqKey="Lambert F" first="France E." last="Lambert">France E. Lambert</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Weber, Hans Peter" sort="Weber, Hans Peter" uniqKey="Weber H" first="Hans-Peter" last="Weber">Hans-Peter Weber</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Susarla, Srinivas M" sort="Susarla, Srinivas M" uniqKey="Susarla S" first="Srinivas M." last="Susarla">Srinivas M. Susarla</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Belser, Urs C" sort="Belser, Urs C" uniqKey="Belser U" first="Urs C." last="Belser">Urs C. Belser</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva</s1>
<s2>Geneva</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gallucci, German O" sort="Gallucci, German O" uniqKey="Gallucci G" first="German O." last="Gallucci">German O. Gallucci</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of periodontology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. periodontol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0022-3492</idno>
<imprint><date when="2009">2009</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Journal of periodontology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. periodontol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0022-3492</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Bibliographic review</term>
<term>Dentistry</term>
<term>Edentulousness</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Jaw</term>
<term>Maxillary</term>
<term>Prognosis</term>
<term>Prosthesis</term>
<term>Survival</term>
<term>Tooth</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Edentation</term>
<term>Prothèse</term>
<term>Implant</term>
<term>Pronostic</term>
<term>Survie</term>
<term>Maxillaire</term>
<term>Dent</term>
<term>Mâchoire</term>
<term>Revue bibliographique</term>
<term>Dentisterie</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0022-3492</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. periodontol.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>80</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>8</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>LAMBERT (France E.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>WEBER (Hans-Peter)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>SUSARLA (Srinivas M.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>BELSER (Urs C.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="05" i2="1"><s1>GALLUCCI (German O.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>5 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital</s1>
<s2>Boston, MA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva</s1>
<s2>Geneva</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>1220-1230</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2009</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>874</s2>
<s5>354000172584020030</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2009 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>76 ref.</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>09-0358614</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Journal of periodontology</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B10C02</s0>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="02" i2="X"><s0>002B25I</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Edentation</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Edentulousness</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Edentación</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Prothèse</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Prosthesis</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Prótesis</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Implant</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Implante</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Pronostic</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Prognosis</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Pronóstico</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Survie</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Survival</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Sobrevivencia</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Maxillaire</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Maxillary</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Maxilar</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Dent</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Tooth</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Diente</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Mâchoire</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Jaw</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Maxilar</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Revue bibliographique</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Bibliographic review</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Revista bibliográfica</s0>
<s5>16</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Dentisterie</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Dentistry</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Odontología</s0>
<s5>30</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Pathologie dentaire</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Dental disease</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Diente patología</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Stomatologie</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Stomatology</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Estomatología</s0>
<s5>38</s5>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>257</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 09-0358614 INIST</NO>
<ET>Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla</ET>
<AU>LAMBERT (France E.); WEBER (Hans-Peter); SUSARLA (Srinivas M.); BELSER (Urs C.); GALLUCCI (German O.)</AU>
<AF>Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University/Boston, MA/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 5 aut.); Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital/Boston, MA/Etats-Unis (3 aut.); Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, and Occlusion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva/Geneva/Suisse (4 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Journal of periodontology; ISSN 0022-3492; Etats-Unis; Da. 2009; Vol. 80; No. 8; Pp. 1220-1230; Bibl. 76 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Background: This descriptive study reviewed the 1- to 15-year survival rates of fixed implant rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. Methods: An electronic search was conducted, and cohort studies with 1- to 15-year follow-ups were identified by two independent reviewers. The implant and prosthodontic survival rates were reviewed at 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year endpoints. Descriptive analysis includes surface characteristics, bone-augmentation procedure, prosthetic design, and implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla. Results: Thirty-three studies, including 1,320 patients and 8,376 implants, were selected for analysis. The overall calculated implant survival rates ranged from 94% (1 year) to 87.7% (15 years). The implant survival rates for rough-surface implants ranged from 97% (1 year) to 98% (15 years); machined implants showed survival rates of 92% to 87.7%; respectively. Implants placed in native bone had greater survival rates than those placed in augmented bone. The prosthodontic survival rate ranged from 98.2% at 1 year to 92.1 % at the 10-year endpoint, and it was only influenced by the implant number and distribution. Conclusions: Implants with rough surfaces showed a statistically higher survival rate than machined implants at all intervals. Implants placed in augmented bone had a statistically lower survival rate, except for rough-surface implants, for which no statistical difference between augmented and non-augmented bone survival rates was found. Machined implants showed a stable survival rate only when placed in native bone. When machined implants were placed in augmented bone, the survival rate decreased significantly at each study endpoint. The prosthetic design, veneering material, and the number of prostheses per arch had no influence on the prosthodontic survival rate. Implant number and distribution along the edentulous maxilla seemed to influence the prosthodontic survival rate.</EA>
<CC>002B10C02; 002B25I</CC>
<FD>Edentation; Prothèse; Implant; Pronostic; Survie; Maxillaire; Dent; Mâchoire; Revue bibliographique; Dentisterie</FD>
<FG>Pathologie dentaire; Stomatologie</FG>
<ED>Edentulousness; Prosthesis; Implant; Prognosis; Survival; Maxillary; Tooth; Jaw; Bibliographic review; Dentistry</ED>
<EG>Dental disease; Stomatology</EG>
<SD>Edentación; Prótesis; Implante; Pronóstico; Sobrevivencia; Maxilar; Diente; Maxilar; Revista bibliográfica; Odontología</SD>
<LO>INIST-874.354000172584020030</LO>
<ID>09-0358614</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000272 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000272 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:09-0358614
   |texte=   Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla

Descriptive Analysis of Implant and Prosthodontic Survival Rates With Fixed Implant-Supported Rehabilitations in the Edentulous Maxilla

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri