Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.
Identifieur interne : 005D44 ( PubMed/Checkpoint ); précédent : 005D43; suivant : 005D45Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.
Auteurs : Gerardo Mendoza-Azpur ; Miguel Lau ; Erick Valdivia ; Jorge Rojas ; Henry Mu Oz ; Myron NevinsSource :
- The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry [ 1945-3388 ]
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- Adulte, Adulte d'âge moyen, Conception de prothèse dentaire, Couronnes, Femelle, Humains, Implants dentaires, Mâchoire partiellement édentée (rééducation et réadaptation), Mâle, Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux (), Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée, Récession gingivale (imagerie diagnostique), Résorption alvéolaire (imagerie diagnostique), Résultat thérapeutique, Tomodensitométrie à faisceau conique, Études de suivi, Études prospectives.
- MESH :
- imagerie diagnostique : Récession gingivale, Résorption alvéolaire.
- rééducation et réadaptation : Mâchoire partiellement édentée.
- Adulte, Adulte d'âge moyen, Conception de prothèse dentaire, Couronnes, Femelle, Humains, Implants dentaires, Mâle, Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux, Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée, Résultat thérapeutique, Tomodensitométrie à faisceau conique, Études de suivi, Études prospectives.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adult, Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging), Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Crowns, Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods), Dental Implants, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gingival Recession (diagnostic imaging), Humans, Jaw, Edentulous, Partially (rehabilitation), Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome.
- MESH :
- chemical : Dental Implants.
- diagnostic imaging : Alveolar Bone Loss, Gingival Recession.
- methods : Dental Implantation, Endosseous.
- rehabilitation : Jaw, Edentulous, Partially.
- Adult, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Crowns, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome.
Abstract
In oral rehabilitation, crown-to-root ratio is accepted as an indicator of bone loss, and this concept was transferred to implants. Recent studies have indicated that there is no significant difference between short and standard implants. The aim of this study was to compare marginal bone-level alteration through radiographic evaluation and clinical parameters between short and standard implants supporting single crowns. This prospective clinical trial study included 82 systemically healthy, nonsmoking subjects. Patients were divided into two groups: one group for short dental implants measuring 5.5 or 7 mm, and one group for standard dental implants measuring 10 or 12 mm, in accordance with the individual needs of the patient. A clinical dental history was taken for each subject, including model casts, dental radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. A periapical analysis was also performed using ImageJ computer software to establish the initial bone measurement and periapical bone loss. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the standard-length implants after 12 months, with greater gingival recession around the implant; however, bone loss in the short implants did not exceed 0.53 mm. The treatment with 5.5- to 7-mm-length implants is as reliable as treatment with 10- or 12-mm implants. Peri-implant bone loss is minimal, and therefore use of short implants can be recommended as treatment for the restoration of partially edentulous patients without the need for splinted crowns.
PubMed: 27740639
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:27740639Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.</title><author><name sortKey="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" sort="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" uniqKey="Mendoza Azpur G" first="Gerardo" last="Mendoza-Azpur">Gerardo Mendoza-Azpur</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lau, Miguel" sort="Lau, Miguel" uniqKey="Lau M" first="Miguel" last="Lau">Miguel Lau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Valdivia, Erick" sort="Valdivia, Erick" uniqKey="Valdivia E" first="Erick" last="Valdivia">Erick Valdivia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rojas, Jorge" sort="Rojas, Jorge" uniqKey="Rojas J" first="Jorge" last="Rojas">Jorge Rojas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mu Oz, Henry" sort="Mu Oz, Henry" uniqKey="Mu Oz H" first="Henry" last="Mu Oz">Henry Mu Oz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nevins, Myron" sort="Nevins, Myron" uniqKey="Nevins M" first="Myron" last="Nevins">Myron Nevins</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="????"><PubDate><MedlineDate>2016 Nov/Dec</MedlineDate></PubDate></date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:27740639</idno><idno type="pmid">27740639</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000070</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.</title><author><name sortKey="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" sort="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" uniqKey="Mendoza Azpur G" first="Gerardo" last="Mendoza-Azpur">Gerardo Mendoza-Azpur</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lau, Miguel" sort="Lau, Miguel" uniqKey="Lau M" first="Miguel" last="Lau">Miguel Lau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Valdivia, Erick" sort="Valdivia, Erick" uniqKey="Valdivia E" first="Erick" last="Valdivia">Erick Valdivia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rojas, Jorge" sort="Rojas, Jorge" uniqKey="Rojas J" first="Jorge" last="Rojas">Jorge Rojas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mu Oz, Henry" sort="Mu Oz, Henry" uniqKey="Mu Oz H" first="Henry" last="Mu Oz">Henry Mu Oz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nevins, Myron" sort="Nevins, Myron" uniqKey="Nevins M" first="Myron" last="Nevins">Myron Nevins</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry</title><idno type="eISSN">1945-3388</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</term><term>Crowns</term><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term><term>Dental Implants</term><term>Dental Prosthesis Design</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Gingival Recession (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Humans</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially (rehabilitation)</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term><term>Conception de prothèse dentaire</term><term>Couronnes</term><term>Femelle</term><term>Humains</term><term>Implants dentaires</term><term>Mâchoire partiellement édentée (rééducation et réadaptation)</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux ()</term><term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée</term><term>Récession gingivale (imagerie diagnostique)</term><term>Résorption alvéolaire (imagerie diagnostique)</term><term>Résultat thérapeutique</term><term>Tomodensitométrie à faisceau conique</term><term>Études de suivi</term><term>Études prospectives</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="diagnostic imaging" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term><term>Gingival Recession</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="imagerie diagnostique" xml:lang="fr"><term>Récession gingivale</term><term>Résorption alvéolaire</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rehabilitation" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rééducation et réadaptation" xml:lang="fr"><term>Mâchoire partiellement édentée</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</term><term>Crowns</term><term>Dental Prosthesis Design</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Treatment Outcome</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term><term>Conception de prothèse dentaire</term><term>Couronnes</term><term>Femelle</term><term>Humains</term><term>Implants dentaires</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux</term><term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée</term><term>Résultat thérapeutique</term><term>Tomodensitométrie à faisceau conique</term><term>Études de suivi</term><term>Études prospectives</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In oral rehabilitation, crown-to-root ratio is accepted as an indicator of bone loss, and this concept was transferred to implants. Recent studies have indicated that there is no significant difference between short and standard implants. The aim of this study was to compare marginal bone-level alteration through radiographic evaluation and clinical parameters between short and standard implants supporting single crowns. This prospective clinical trial study included 82 systemically healthy, nonsmoking subjects. Patients were divided into two groups: one group for short dental implants measuring 5.5 or 7 mm, and one group for standard dental implants measuring 10 or 12 mm, in accordance with the individual needs of the patient. A clinical dental history was taken for each subject, including model casts, dental radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. A periapical analysis was also performed using ImageJ computer software to establish the initial bone measurement and periapical bone loss. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the standard-length implants after 12 months, with greater gingival recession around the implant; however, bone loss in the short implants did not exceed 0.53 mm. The treatment with 5.5- to 7-mm-length implants is as reliable as treatment with 10- or 12-mm implants. Peri-implant bone loss is minimal, and therefore use of short implants can be recommended as treatment for the restoration of partially edentulous patients without the need for splinted crowns.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">27740639</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2017</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>02</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2017</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>02</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1945-3388</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>36</Volume><Issue>6</Issue><PubDate><MedlineDate>2016 Nov/Dec</MedlineDate></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>791-795</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.11607/prd.3026</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>In oral rehabilitation, crown-to-root ratio is accepted as an indicator of bone loss, and this concept was transferred to implants. Recent studies have indicated that there is no significant difference between short and standard implants. The aim of this study was to compare marginal bone-level alteration through radiographic evaluation and clinical parameters between short and standard implants supporting single crowns. This prospective clinical trial study included 82 systemically healthy, nonsmoking subjects. Patients were divided into two groups: one group for short dental implants measuring 5.5 or 7 mm, and one group for standard dental implants measuring 10 or 12 mm, in accordance with the individual needs of the patient. A clinical dental history was taken for each subject, including model casts, dental radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. A periapical analysis was also performed using ImageJ computer software to establish the initial bone measurement and periapical bone loss. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the standard-length implants after 12 months, with greater gingival recession around the implant; however, bone loss in the short implants did not exceed 0.53 mm. The treatment with 5.5- to 7-mm-length implants is as reliable as treatment with 10- or 12-mm implants. Peri-implant bone loss is minimal, and therefore use of short implants can be recommended as treatment for the restoration of partially edentulous patients without the need for splinted crowns.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Mendoza-Azpur</LastName><ForeName>Gerardo</ForeName><Initials>G</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Lau</LastName><ForeName>Miguel</ForeName><Initials>M</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Valdivia</LastName><ForeName>Erick</ForeName><Initials>E</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Rojas</LastName><ForeName>Jorge</ForeName><Initials>J</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Muñoz</LastName><ForeName>Henry</ForeName><Initials>H</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Nevins</LastName><ForeName>Myron</ForeName><Initials>M</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D018848">Controlled Clinical Trial</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>8200894</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0198-7569</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016301" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveolar Bone Loss</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D054893" MajorTopicYN="N">Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003442" MajorTopicYN="Y">Crowns</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Implants</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017267" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Prosthesis Design</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005500" MajorTopicYN="N">Follow-Up Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005889" MajorTopicYN="N">Gingival Recession</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007576" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous, Partially</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="N">rehabilitation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011446" MajorTopicYN="N">Prospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016896" MajorTopicYN="N">Treatment Outcome</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>15</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>16</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2017</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>3</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">27740639</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Lau, Miguel" sort="Lau, Miguel" uniqKey="Lau M" first="Miguel" last="Lau">Miguel Lau</name><name sortKey="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" sort="Mendoza Azpur, Gerardo" uniqKey="Mendoza Azpur G" first="Gerardo" last="Mendoza-Azpur">Gerardo Mendoza-Azpur</name><name sortKey="Mu Oz, Henry" sort="Mu Oz, Henry" uniqKey="Mu Oz H" first="Henry" last="Mu Oz">Henry Mu Oz</name><name sortKey="Nevins, Myron" sort="Nevins, Myron" uniqKey="Nevins M" first="Myron" last="Nevins">Myron Nevins</name><name sortKey="Rojas, Jorge" sort="Rojas, Jorge" uniqKey="Rojas J" first="Jorge" last="Rojas">Jorge Rojas</name><name sortKey="Valdivia, Erick" sort="Valdivia, Erick" uniqKey="Valdivia E" first="Erick" last="Valdivia">Erick Valdivia</name></noCountry></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005D44 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 005D44 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Checkpoint
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:27740639
|texte= Assessment of Marginal Peri-implant Bone-Level Short-Length Implants Compared with Standard Implants Supporting Single Crowns in a Controlled Clinical Trial: 12-Month Follow-up.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:27740639" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |