To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Clinical outcome of Bråne… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Clinical outcome of Brånemark System implants of various diameters: a retrospective study.

Journal article
Authors Bertil Friberg
Annika Ekestubbe
Lars Sennerby
Published in The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume 17
Issue 5
Pages 671-7
ISSN 0882-2786
Publication year 2002
Published at Institute of Odontology
Institute of Surgical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 671-7
Language en
Links www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Keywords Alveolar Bone Loss, radiography, Bone Density, Dental Abutments, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Dental Implants, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Jaw, Edentulous, radiography, surgery, Jaw, Edentulous, Partially, radiography, surgery, Life Tables, Male, Mandible, radiography, surgery, Maxilla, radiography, surgery, Middle Aged, Osseointegration, Retrospective Studies, Statistics as Topic, Surface Properties, Treatment Outcome, Wound Healing
Subject categories Surgical research

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the 3 different diameters of Brånemark System implants, with special focus on the 5.0-mm-diameter implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (99 jaws) with a mean age of 62 years were included in this retrospective report. The mean follow-up period was 2 years and 8 months. A total of 379 Brånemark System implants (3.75 mm diameter, n = 146; 4.0 mm diameter, n = 76; 5.0 mm diameter, n = 157) were placed in 29 edentulous and 70 partially edentulous jaws. RESULTS: Eight of the 146 implants in the 3.75-mm-diameter group failed (5.5%). The corresponding figures for the 4.0- and 5.0-mm-diameter implants were 3 of 76 (3.9%) and 7 of 157 (4.5%), respectively. DISCUSSION: All failures were recorded in maxillae, ie, 18 of the 298 placed, and the majority of these were found in bone quantity group B and quality group 2. Only 3 implants of 131 failed in bone judged as quality 4. The marginal bone loss was low for the 3 implant diameter groups. CONCLUSION: The favorable outcome in bone of poor quality is ascribed partly to the use of an adapted preparation technique and extended healing periods for achievement of the best primary and secondary implant stability possible.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?