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.

The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.

Identifieur interne : 002D22 ( PubMed/Curation ); précédent : 002D21; suivant : 002D23

The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.

Auteurs : Dariusz Jabło Ski

Source :

RBID : pubmed:16871751

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Advanced atrophy bone in edentulous jaws is a serious problem for conventional prosthodontics. The advent of implantology, as well as guided reconstruction of bones, has opened new possibilities for conventional prosthodontic suprastructures. The turning point in implantology occurred in the sixties and was promoted by a Swedish orthopaedist Brånemark. Nowadays, implants are inserted routinely without creating any significant problems to a skillful maxillofacial surgeon. This study was performed in 73 patients who had 77 prosthodontic suprastructures (fixed suprastructures in 58 and removable in 15 patients) placed on a total of 331 implants. Three types--blade, cylindrical and screw implants, were used. Patients with both total and partial defects had typical removable and fixed suprastructures installed. All patients were followed radiologically and clinically. Pantomographic images taken at different stages of the study served to measure bone atrophy near the implants. The atrophy of bones near implants supported by removable prosthodontic suprastructures was compared with fixed suprastructures. Dental bridges were made and supported by implants and by the patient's own teeth at the same time. Removable suprastructures, however, were supported mainly by implants connected with bars or implants with ball attachments. The prothesis saddle rested on the epithelium of the oral cavity. Following location of the implants, lower and upper jaws were divided into four regions. Statistical data served to determine in which of the four regions atrophy of bones was most and least advanced taking into consideration the type of implant and type of prosthodontic suprastructure. Record was made of the region, stage and implant which underwent explantation. Radiographs taken before and after implantoprosthetic rehabilitation demonstrated that atrophy of bones did not occur in 106 cases. Six patients underwent reconstruction of bones near the implants. Statistics showed that fixed prosthodontic suprastructures are superior to removable as far as jaw rehabilitation is concerned. Atrophy of bones near implants supported by fixed suprastructures was smaller. Nevertheless, usefulness of the removable suprastructures cannot be questioned. Not only do they represent an effective solution, but are far less expensive than fixed. Statistics revealed that the best regions to install implants include the presinusal (I) and interforaminal regions (II). The least advanced atrophy of bones occurred near screw implants (0.8 mm in region I, 0.7 mm in region II, 0.3 mm in subantal region (III) and 1.3 mm in postforaminal region (IV)). On the other hand, the most advanced atrophy occurred near blade implants (1.7 mm in region III and 3.3 mm in region IV). Twelve out of 331 implants were lost (3.6%)--seven during the healing process and five after placement of suprastructures (all cylindrical), contributing to successful implantoprosthetic therapy in 96.4% of cases. One out of twelve implants was lost in the mandible and eleven in the maxilla indicating that the mandible is more suitable for implantation. On the basis of this prospective study it can be concluded that further progress in implantoprosthetics, a relatively new branch of dentistry, will open new possibilities for prosthetic therapy.

PubMed: 16871751

Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)


Links to Exploration step

pubmed:16871751

Curation

No country items

Dariusz Jabło Ski
<affiliation>
<nlm:affiliation>Prywatna praktyka specjalistyczna, Szczecin.</nlm:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="subField">Szczecin</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI>
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Jablo Ski, Dariusz" sort="Jablo Ski, Dariusz" uniqKey="Jablo Ski D" first="Dariusz" last="Jabło Ski">Dariusz Jabło Ski</name>
<affiliation>
<nlm:affiliation>Prywatna praktyka specjalistyczna, Szczecin.</nlm:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="subField">Szczecin</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2004">2004</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:16871751</idno>
<idno type="pmid">16871751</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">002D22</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002D22</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">002D22</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">002D22</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title xml:lang="en">The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Jablo Ski, Dariusz" sort="Jablo Ski, Dariusz" uniqKey="Jablo Ski D" first="Dariusz" last="Jabło Ski">Dariusz Jabło Ski</name>
<affiliation>
<nlm:affiliation>Prywatna praktyka specjalistyczna, Szczecin.</nlm:affiliation>
<wicri:noCountry code="subField">Szczecin</wicri:noCountry>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series>
<title level="j">Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1427-440X</idno>
<imprint>
<date when="2004" type="published">2004</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en">
<term>Adolescent</term>
<term>Adult</term>
<term>Aged</term>
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss (epidemiology)</term>
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss (pathology)</term>
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss (prevention & control)</term>
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term>
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (trends)</term>
<term>Dental Implants (trends)</term>
<term>Dental Prosthesis Design (methods)</term>
<term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported (methods)</term>
<term>Denture Design (trends)</term>
<term>Female</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous (complications)</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous (epidemiology)</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous (rehabilitation)</term>
<term>Male</term>
<term>Middle Aged</term>
<term>Oral Surgical Procedures, Preprosthetic (methods)</term>
<term>Orthodontic Appliances, Removable</term>
<term>Osseointegration</term>
<term>Prospective Studies</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Adolescent</term>
<term>Adulte</term>
<term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term>
<term>Appareils orthodontiques amovibles</term>
<term>Conception d'appareil de prothèse dentaire (tendances)</term>
<term>Conception de prothèse dentaire ()</term>
<term>Femelle</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>Implants dentaires (tendances)</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée ()</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée (rééducation et réadaptation)</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée (épidémiologie)</term>
<term>Mâle</term>
<term>Ostéo-intégration</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux ()</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux (tendances)</term>
<term>Procédures de chirurgie préprothétique en odontologie ()</term>
<term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée ()</term>
<term>Résorption alvéolaire ()</term>
<term>Résorption alvéolaire (anatomopathologie)</term>
<term>Résorption alvéolaire (épidémiologie)</term>
<term>Sujet âgé</term>
<term>Études prospectives</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="trends" xml:lang="en">
<term>Dental Implants</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="anatomopathologie" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Résorption alvéolaire</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="complications" xml:lang="en">
<term>Jaw, Edentulous</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="epidemiology" xml:lang="en">
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term>
<term>Jaw, Edentulous</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en">
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term>
<term>Dental Prosthesis Design</term>
<term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term>
<term>Oral Surgical Procedures, Preprosthetic</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="pathology" xml:lang="en">
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="prevention & control" xml:lang="en">
<term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rehabilitation" xml:lang="en">
<term>Jaw, Edentulous</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="rééducation et réadaptation" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Mâchoire édentée</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="tendances" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Conception d'appareil de prothèse dentaire</term>
<term>Implants dentaires</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="trends" xml:lang="en">
<term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term>
<term>Denture Design</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="épidémiologie" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Mâchoire édentée</term>
<term>Résorption alvéolaire</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en">
<term>Adolescent</term>
<term>Adult</term>
<term>Aged</term>
<term>Female</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>Male</term>
<term>Middle Aged</term>
<term>Orthodontic Appliances, Removable</term>
<term>Osseointegration</term>
<term>Prospective Studies</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr">
<term>Adolescent</term>
<term>Adulte</term>
<term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term>
<term>Appareils orthodontiques amovibles</term>
<term>Conception de prothèse dentaire</term>
<term>Femelle</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>Mâchoire édentée</term>
<term>Mâle</term>
<term>Ostéo-intégration</term>
<term>Pose d'implant dentaire endo-osseux</term>
<term>Procédures de chirurgie préprothétique en odontologie</term>
<term>Prothèse dentaire implanto-portée</term>
<term>Résorption alvéolaire</term>
<term>Sujet âgé</term>
<term>Études prospectives</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Advanced atrophy bone in edentulous jaws is a serious problem for conventional prosthodontics. The advent of implantology, as well as guided reconstruction of bones, has opened new possibilities for conventional prosthodontic suprastructures. The turning point in implantology occurred in the sixties and was promoted by a Swedish orthopaedist Brånemark. Nowadays, implants are inserted routinely without creating any significant problems to a skillful maxillofacial surgeon. This study was performed in 73 patients who had 77 prosthodontic suprastructures (fixed suprastructures in 58 and removable in 15 patients) placed on a total of 331 implants. Three types--blade, cylindrical and screw implants, were used. Patients with both total and partial defects had typical removable and fixed suprastructures installed. All patients were followed radiologically and clinically. Pantomographic images taken at different stages of the study served to measure bone atrophy near the implants. The atrophy of bones near implants supported by removable prosthodontic suprastructures was compared with fixed suprastructures. Dental bridges were made and supported by implants and by the patient's own teeth at the same time. Removable suprastructures, however, were supported mainly by implants connected with bars or implants with ball attachments. The prothesis saddle rested on the epithelium of the oral cavity. Following location of the implants, lower and upper jaws were divided into four regions. Statistical data served to determine in which of the four regions atrophy of bones was most and least advanced taking into consideration the type of implant and type of prosthodontic suprastructure. Record was made of the region, stage and implant which underwent explantation. Radiographs taken before and after implantoprosthetic rehabilitation demonstrated that atrophy of bones did not occur in 106 cases. Six patients underwent reconstruction of bones near the implants. Statistics showed that fixed prosthodontic suprastructures are superior to removable as far as jaw rehabilitation is concerned. Atrophy of bones near implants supported by fixed suprastructures was smaller. Nevertheless, usefulness of the removable suprastructures cannot be questioned. Not only do they represent an effective solution, but are far less expensive than fixed. Statistics revealed that the best regions to install implants include the presinusal (I) and interforaminal regions (II). The least advanced atrophy of bones occurred near screw implants (0.8 mm in region I, 0.7 mm in region II, 0.3 mm in subantal region (III) and 1.3 mm in postforaminal region (IV)). On the other hand, the most advanced atrophy occurred near blade implants (1.7 mm in region III and 3.3 mm in region IV). Twelve out of 331 implants were lost (3.6%)--seven during the healing process and five after placement of suprastructures (all cylindrical), contributing to successful implantoprosthetic therapy in 96.4% of cases. One out of twelve implants was lost in the mandible and eleven in the maxilla indicating that the mandible is more suitable for implantation. On the basis of this prospective study it can be concluded that further progress in implantoprosthetics, a relatively new branch of dentistry, will open new possibilities for prosthetic therapy.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed>
<MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM">
<PMID Version="1">16871751</PMID>
<DateCompleted>
<Year>2006</Year>
<Month>09</Month>
<Day>12</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised>
<Year>2006</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print">
<Journal>
<ISSN IssnType="Print">1427-440X</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print">
<Volume>50</Volume>
<Issue>1</Issue>
<PubDate>
<Year>2004</Year>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Ann Acad Med Stetin</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination>
<MedlinePgn>123-9</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<Abstract>
<AbstractText>Advanced atrophy bone in edentulous jaws is a serious problem for conventional prosthodontics. The advent of implantology, as well as guided reconstruction of bones, has opened new possibilities for conventional prosthodontic suprastructures. The turning point in implantology occurred in the sixties and was promoted by a Swedish orthopaedist Brånemark. Nowadays, implants are inserted routinely without creating any significant problems to a skillful maxillofacial surgeon. This study was performed in 73 patients who had 77 prosthodontic suprastructures (fixed suprastructures in 58 and removable in 15 patients) placed on a total of 331 implants. Three types--blade, cylindrical and screw implants, were used. Patients with both total and partial defects had typical removable and fixed suprastructures installed. All patients were followed radiologically and clinically. Pantomographic images taken at different stages of the study served to measure bone atrophy near the implants. The atrophy of bones near implants supported by removable prosthodontic suprastructures was compared with fixed suprastructures. Dental bridges were made and supported by implants and by the patient's own teeth at the same time. Removable suprastructures, however, were supported mainly by implants connected with bars or implants with ball attachments. The prothesis saddle rested on the epithelium of the oral cavity. Following location of the implants, lower and upper jaws were divided into four regions. Statistical data served to determine in which of the four regions atrophy of bones was most and least advanced taking into consideration the type of implant and type of prosthodontic suprastructure. Record was made of the region, stage and implant which underwent explantation. Radiographs taken before and after implantoprosthetic rehabilitation demonstrated that atrophy of bones did not occur in 106 cases. Six patients underwent reconstruction of bones near the implants. Statistics showed that fixed prosthodontic suprastructures are superior to removable as far as jaw rehabilitation is concerned. Atrophy of bones near implants supported by fixed suprastructures was smaller. Nevertheless, usefulness of the removable suprastructures cannot be questioned. Not only do they represent an effective solution, but are far less expensive than fixed. Statistics revealed that the best regions to install implants include the presinusal (I) and interforaminal regions (II). The least advanced atrophy of bones occurred near screw implants (0.8 mm in region I, 0.7 mm in region II, 0.3 mm in subantal region (III) and 1.3 mm in postforaminal region (IV)). On the other hand, the most advanced atrophy occurred near blade implants (1.7 mm in region III and 3.3 mm in region IV). Twelve out of 331 implants were lost (3.6%)--seven during the healing process and five after placement of suprastructures (all cylindrical), contributing to successful implantoprosthetic therapy in 96.4% of cases. One out of twelve implants was lost in the mandible and eleven in the maxilla indicating that the mandible is more suitable for implantation. On the basis of this prospective study it can be concluded that further progress in implantoprosthetics, a relatively new branch of dentistry, will open new possibilities for prosthetic therapy.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y">
<Author ValidYN="Y">
<LastName>Jabłoński</LastName>
<ForeName>Dariusz</ForeName>
<Initials>D</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo>
<Affiliation>Prywatna praktyka specjalistyczna, Szczecin.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList>
<PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D023362">Evaluation Studies</PublicationType>
<PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo>
<Country>Poland</Country>
<MedlineTA>Ann Acad Med Stetin</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>7506854</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>1427-440X</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<ChemicalList>
<Chemical>
<RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber>
<NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance>
</Chemical>
</ChemicalList>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<MeshHeadingList>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D000293" MajorTopicYN="N">Adolescent</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D016301" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveolar Bone Loss</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="Y">epidemiology</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000473" MajorTopicYN="N">pathology</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000517" MajorTopicYN="Y">prevention & control</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000639" MajorTopicYN="N">trends</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implants</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000639" MajorTopicYN="N">trends</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D017267" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis Design</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D003779" MajorTopicYN="N">Denture Design</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000639" MajorTopicYN="N">trends</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000150" MajorTopicYN="N">complications</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="Y">epidemiology</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000534" MajorTopicYN="Y">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="D013516" MajorTopicYN="N">Oral Surgical Procedures, Preprosthetic</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D009968" MajorTopicYN="Y">Orthodontic Appliances, Removable</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D016348" MajorTopicYN="N">Osseointegration</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading>
<DescriptorName UI="D011446" MajorTopicYN="N">Prospective Studies</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
</MeshHeadingList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData>
<History>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed">
<Year>2006</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>29</Day>
<Hour>9</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline">
<Year>2006</Year>
<Month>9</Month>
<Day>13</Day>
<Hour>9</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez">
<Year>2006</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>29</Day>
<Hour>9</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16871751</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002D22 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 002D22 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    PubMed
   |étape=   Curation
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     pubmed:16871751
   |texte=   The comparison of usefulness prosthetic rehabilitation with removable and fixed suprastructures on endosseous implants.
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:16871751" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Curation/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2 

Wicri

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