To the top

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

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

One-year prospective thre… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

One-year prospective three-center study comparing the outcome of a "soft bone implant" (prototype Mk IV) and the standard Brånemark implant.

Journal article
Authors Bertil Friberg
Sven Jisander
Göran Widmark
Anna Karin Lundgren
Carl-Johan Ivanoff
Lars Sennerby
Christina Thorén
Published in Clinical implant dentistry and related research
Volume 5
Issue 2
Pages 71-7
ISSN 1523-0899
Publication year 2003
Published at Institute of Odontology
Institute of Surgical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 71-7
Language en
Links www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Keywords Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alveolar Bone Loss, etiology, Bone Density, physiology, Dental Abutments, Dental Implants, Dental Prosthesis Design, Dental Prosthesis Retention, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osseointegration, Prospective Studies, Surface Properties, Torque, Treatment Outcome
Subject categories Surgical research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Oral implant treatment ad modum Brånemark has been used for decades in the rehabilitation of edentate and partially dentate patients. Posterior jaw regions frequently exhibit bone of poor texture, and it is often difficult to obtain primary stability. Thus, it may prove beneficial to deviate from the original protocol and to use implants with a modified design, for example, with a slightly tapered geometry. PURPOSE: The purpose of the investigation was to compare the early behavior of a modified (prototype Mk IV, Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden; test) implant with that of the standard Brånemark implant (control) in regions of mainly type 4 bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three Swedish centers participated, and a total of 44 patients were treated with oral implants for 39 maxillas and 5 mandibles. The study focused on the most distal right and left implant sites (88 implants), which were randomized to receive either a test or a control implant. Various parameters were recorded, such as registered insertion torque (OsseoCare), Nobel Biocare AB), wobbling during insertion, primary and secondary stability (as measured with resonance frequency), and marginal bone loss. The implants were followed up for 1 year. RESULTS: The test implant more frequently required a higher insertion torque and showed a significantly higher primary stability than the control implant. This difference in stability leveled out over time, and test and control implants exhibited similar secondary stability at abutment operation and at the 1-year visit. Wobbling during insertion was rarely recorded for either of the implant designs. The 1-year cumulative success rate was 93.1% for test implants and 88.4% for control implants. CONCLUSIONS: The modified implant design resulted in an increased primary stability, which may be important when placing implants in jaw regions of type 4 bone. However, independent of the achieved primary stability, successful implants tended to approach similar secondary stability in the two designs tested.

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?