Nine-to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions

2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 ◽  
pp. 75-76
Author(s):  
A. Dentino
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Marie Roos-Jansaker ◽  
Helena Renvert ◽  
Christel Lindahl ◽  
Stefan Renvert

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 1288-1296 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dierens ◽  
S. Vandeweghe ◽  
J. Kisch ◽  
K. Nilner ◽  
J. Cosyn ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco G. Mangano ◽  
Carlo Mangano ◽  
Massimiliano Ricci ◽  
Rachel L. Sammons ◽  
Jamil A. Shibli ◽  
...  

The aim of this study was to compare the esthetic outcome of single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with those placed in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. This retrospective study was based on data from patients treated with single-tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and in fully healed sites of the anterior maxilla. Only single implant treatments were considered with both neighboring teeth present. Additional prerequisites for immediate implant treatment were intact socket walls and a thick gingival biotype. The esthetic outcome was objectively rated using the pink esthetic/white esthetic score (PES/WES). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the PES and the WES between the 2 groups. Twenty-two patients received an immediate implant, and 18 patients had conventional implant surgery. The mean follow-up was 31.09 months (SD 5.57; range 24–46) and 34.44 months (SD 7.10; range 24–48) for immediately and conventionally inserted implants, respectively. No implants were lost. All implants fulfilled the success criteria. The mean PES/WES was 14.50 (SD 2.52; range 9–19) and 15.61 (SD 3.20; range 8–20) for immediately and conventionally placed implants, respectively. Immediate implants had a mean PES of 7.45 (SD 1.62; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.04 (SD 1.29; range 5–10). Conventional implants had a mean PES of 7.83 (SD 1.58; range 4–10) and a mean WES of 7.77 (SD 1.66; range 4–10). The difference between the 2 groups was not significant. Immediate and conventional single implant treatment yielded comparable esthetic outcomes.


2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 364-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Maksoud ◽  
Clifford B. Starr

Abstract Little data have been published on the survival rates of implants placed in dental residency programs. This study reports on the outcome of dental implants placed by first-year general dentistry residents in the University of Florida College of Dentistry–Jacksonville Clinic. The patients for this study received both surgical and restorative implant therapy from 1998 to 2002. A total of 108 patients (62 women, 46 men) were treated with dental implants. On average, a patient was 52.9 years old and received 2.6 implants. A variety of simple and complex restorative procedures were performed. Advanced general dentistry residents in conjunction with supervisory faculty treated all cases. The cumulative implant survival was 98.2%. Follow-up varied from 6 months to 4 years after placement. Cases included implants not yet loaded as well as implants loaded for 3 years or more. The findings of this study compare favorably with published studies and were unexpected in light of the residents' limited clinical experience.


2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Dierens ◽  
Hugo De Bruyn ◽  
Jenö Kisch ◽  
Krister Nilner ◽  
Jan Cosyn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document