A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.
Identifieur interne : 002302 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 002301; suivant : 002303A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.
Auteurs : Jonas P. Becktor ; Sten Isaksson ; Camilla BillströmSource :
- Clinical implant dentistry and related research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2007.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bone Density, Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods), Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Jaw, Edentulous (diagnostic imaging), Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation), Male, Mandible (surgery), Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radiography, Time Factors.
- MESH :
- diagnostic imaging : Jaw, Edentulous.
- methods : Dental Implantation, Endosseous.
- rehabilitation : Jaw, Edentulous.
- surgery : Mandible.
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bone Density, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radiography, Time Factors.
Abstract
The use of a submerged implant system in a nonsubmerged surgical procedure has been reported to have promising results. At the time this study was initiated, no prospective, comparative studies with randomization between submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques had been published.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00041.x
PubMed: 18031439
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:18031439Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.</title><author><name sortKey="Becktor, Jonas P" sort="Becktor, Jonas P" uniqKey="Becktor J" first="Jonas P" last="Becktor">Jonas P. Becktor</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Maxillofacial Unit, Specialisttandvården, Länssjukhuset, Halmstad, Sweden. jonas@becktor.dk</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Isaksson, Sten" sort="Isaksson, Sten" uniqKey="Isaksson S" first="Sten" last="Isaksson">Sten Isaksson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Billstrom, Camilla" sort="Billstrom, Camilla" uniqKey="Billstrom C" first="Camilla" last="Billström">Camilla Billström</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2007">2007</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:18031439</idno><idno type="pmid">18031439</idno><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00041.x</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">002302</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002302</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.</title><author><name sortKey="Becktor, Jonas P" sort="Becktor, Jonas P" uniqKey="Becktor J" first="Jonas P" last="Becktor">Jonas P. Becktor</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Maxillofacial Unit, Specialisttandvården, Länssjukhuset, Halmstad, Sweden. jonas@becktor.dk</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Isaksson, Sten" sort="Isaksson, Sten" uniqKey="Isaksson S" first="Sten" last="Isaksson">Sten Isaksson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Billstrom, Camilla" sort="Billstrom, Camilla" uniqKey="Billstrom C" first="Camilla" last="Billström">Camilla Billström</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Clinical implant dentistry and related research</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><imprint><date when="2007" type="published">2007</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Bone Density</term><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation)</term><term>Male</term><term>Mandible (surgery)</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Time Factors</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="diagnostic imaging" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</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</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="surgery" xml:lang="en"><term>Mandible</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Bone Density</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Dental Restoration Failure</term><term>Female</term><term>Follow-Up Studies</term><term>Humans</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Radiography</term><term>Time Factors</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The use of a submerged implant system in a nonsubmerged surgical procedure has been reported to have promising results. At the time this study was initiated, no prospective, comparative studies with randomization between submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques had been published.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">18031439</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2008</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>07</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2016</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>24</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">1523-0899</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>9</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><Year>2007</Year><Month>Dec</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Clinical implant dentistry and related research</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>179-85</MedlinePgn></Pagination><Abstract><AbstractText Label="BACKGROUND" NlmCategory="BACKGROUND">The use of a submerged implant system in a nonsubmerged surgical procedure has been reported to have promising results. At the time this study was initiated, no prospective, comparative studies with randomization between submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques had been published.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="PURPOSE" NlmCategory="OBJECTIVE">To evaluate the submerged and nonsubmerged surgical techniques when treating mandibular edentulism using a submerged implant system, with regard to implant survival and complications.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="MATERIALS AND METHODS" NlmCategory="METHODS">A total of 77 patients were included and treated at nine clinics in Sweden and Norway. In total, 404 Brånemark System implants (standard and MkII implants) were inserted in the edentulous mandible; 198 implants according to the nonsubmerged protocol and 206 implants according to the traditional submerged procedure. The follow-up period was up to 36 months after prosthesis insertion.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="RESULTS" NlmCategory="RESULTS">In the nonsubmerged group, 17 implants out of 198 implants (8.6%) were lost and in the submerged group, 5 out of 206 implants (2.4%) were lost. All implant failures occurred before the delivery of the final prosthesis. No major complications were reported during the implant surgery. However, at the clinical check-up postoperatively and at the abutment connection surgery, 6 patients in the nonsubmerged group complained of pain at the implant sites, whereas there were no complaints of pain in the submerged group.</AbstractText><AbstractText Label="CONCLUSIONS" NlmCategory="CONCLUSIONS">The results of this study suggest that a turned Brånemark implant designed for a submerged implant placement procedure can be used in a nonsubmerged procedure and may be as predictable as the conventional submerged approach.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Becktor</LastName><ForeName>Jonas P</ForeName><Initials>JP</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Maxillofacial Unit, Specialisttandvården, Länssjukhuset, Halmstad, Sweden. jonas@becktor.dk</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Isaksson</LastName><ForeName>Sten</ForeName><Initials>S</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Billström</LastName><ForeName>Camilla</ForeName><Initials>C</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016448">Multicenter Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016449">Randomized Controlled Trial</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>100888977</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1523-0899</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000369" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged, 80 and over</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015519" MajorTopicYN="N">Bone Density</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019232" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Restoration Failure</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="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="N">rehabilitation</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008334" MajorTopicYN="N">Mandible</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="N">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011446" MajorTopicYN="N">Prospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011859" MajorTopicYN="N">Radiography</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D013997" MajorTopicYN="N">Time Factors</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2007</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2008</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>8</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2007</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18031439</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">CID041</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00041.x</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002302 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002302 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:18031439
|texte= A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:18031439" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |