File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Maxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perception
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleMaxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perception
 
AuthorsPjetursson, BE4 2
Rast, C4
Brägger, U4
Schmidlin, K1
Zwahlen, M1
Lang, NP4 3
 
Issue Date2009
 
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 7, p. 667-676 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x
 
AbstractObjectives: To analyze the survival and success rates of implants installed utilizing the (transalveolar) osteotome technique, to compare peri-implant soft tissue parameters and marginal bone levels of osteotome-installed implants with implants placed using standard surgical procedures, and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. Material and methods: During 2000 to 2005, 252 Straumann® dental implants were inserted in 181 patients. The surgical technique was a modification of the original osteotome technique presented by Summers. In addition to the clinical examination, the patients were asked to give their perception of the surgical procedure, utilizing a visual analogue scale. Results: The cumulative survival rate of the osteotome-installed implants after a mean follow-up time of 3.2 years, was 97.4% (95% confidence intervals: 94.4-98.8%). From the 252 implants inserted, three were lost before loading and another three were lost in the first and second year. According to residual bone height the survival was 91.3% for implant sites with ≤4 mm residual bone height, and 90% for sites with 4 mm and 5 mm, when compared with that of 100% in sites with bone height of above 5 mm. According to implant length the survival rates were 100% for 12 mm, 98.7% for 10 mm, 98.7% for 8 mm and only 47.6% for 6 mm implants. Soft tissue parameters (pocket probing depth, probing attachment level, bleeding on probing and marginal bone levels) did not yield any differences between the osteotome-installed and the conventionally placed implants. More than 90% of the patients were satisfied with the implant therapy and would undergo similar therapy again if necessary. The cost associated with implant therapy was considered to be justified. Conclusion: In conclusion, the osteotome technique was a reliable method for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla, especially at sites with 5 mm or more of preoperative residual bone height and a relatively flat sinus floor. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
ISSN0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000266696300003
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BE
 
dc.contributor.authorRast, C
 
dc.contributor.authorBrägger, U
 
dc.contributor.authorSchmidlin, K
 
dc.contributor.authorZwahlen, M
 
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:26:13Z
 
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:26:13Z
 
dc.date.issued2009
 
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To analyze the survival and success rates of implants installed utilizing the (transalveolar) osteotome technique, to compare peri-implant soft tissue parameters and marginal bone levels of osteotome-installed implants with implants placed using standard surgical procedures, and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. Material and methods: During 2000 to 2005, 252 Straumann® dental implants were inserted in 181 patients. The surgical technique was a modification of the original osteotome technique presented by Summers. In addition to the clinical examination, the patients were asked to give their perception of the surgical procedure, utilizing a visual analogue scale. Results: The cumulative survival rate of the osteotome-installed implants after a mean follow-up time of 3.2 years, was 97.4% (95% confidence intervals: 94.4-98.8%). From the 252 implants inserted, three were lost before loading and another three were lost in the first and second year. According to residual bone height the survival was 91.3% for implant sites with ≤4 mm residual bone height, and 90% for sites with 4 mm and 5 mm, when compared with that of 100% in sites with bone height of above 5 mm. According to implant length the survival rates were 100% for 12 mm, 98.7% for 10 mm, 98.7% for 8 mm and only 47.6% for 6 mm implants. Soft tissue parameters (pocket probing depth, probing attachment level, bleeding on probing and marginal bone levels) did not yield any differences between the osteotome-installed and the conventionally placed implants. More than 90% of the patients were satisfied with the implant therapy and would undergo similar therapy again if necessary. The cost associated with implant therapy was considered to be justified. Conclusion: In conclusion, the osteotome technique was a reliable method for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla, especially at sites with 5 mm or more of preoperative residual bone height and a relatively flat sinus floor. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 7, p. 667-676 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x
 
dc.identifier.citeulike4834155
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x
 
dc.identifier.epage676
 
dc.identifier.hkuros165458
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000266696300003
 
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
dc.identifier.issue7
 
dc.identifier.pmid19486079
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-66749099062
 
dc.identifier.spage667
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154570
 
dc.identifier.volume20
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subject.meshAdolescent
 
dc.subject.meshAdult
 
dc.subject.meshAged
 
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 And Over
 
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Bone Loss - Classification
 
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Ridge Augmentation - Methods
 
dc.subject.meshBone Matrix - Transplantation
 
dc.subject.meshBone Substitutes - Therapeutic Use
 
dc.subject.meshCohort Studies
 
dc.subject.meshDental Abutments
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implants
 
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
 
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failure
 
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studies
 
dc.subject.meshGingival Hemorrhage - Classification
 
dc.subject.meshHumans
 
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - Surgery
 
dc.subject.meshMaxillary Sinus - Surgery
 
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
 
dc.subject.meshMinerals - Therapeutic Use
 
dc.subject.meshOsteotomy - Instrumentation - Methods
 
dc.subject.meshPatient Satisfaction
 
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Attachment Loss - Classification
 
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Pocket - Classification
 
dc.subject.meshProspective Studies
 
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysis
 
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
 
dc.subject.meshYoung Adult
 
dc.titleMaxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perception
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Pjetursson, BE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Rast, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Br&#228;gger, U</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Schmidlin, K</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Zwahlen, M</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-08-08T08:26:13Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-08-08T08:26:13Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2009</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 7, p. 667-676</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0905-7161</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/154570</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Objectives: To analyze the survival and success rates of implants installed utilizing the (transalveolar) osteotome technique, to compare peri-implant soft tissue parameters and marginal bone levels of osteotome-installed implants with implants placed using standard surgical procedures, and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. Material and methods: During 2000 to 2005, 252 Straumann&#174; dental implants were inserted in 181 patients. The surgical technique was a modification of the original osteotome technique presented by Summers. In addition to the clinical examination, the patients were asked to give their perception of the surgical procedure, utilizing a visual analogue scale. Results: The cumulative survival rate of the osteotome-installed implants after a mean follow-up time of 3.2 years, was 97.4% (95% confidence intervals: 94.4-98.8%). From the 252 implants inserted, three were lost before loading and another three were lost in the first and second year. According to residual bone height the survival was 91.3% for implant sites with &#8804;4 mm residual bone height, and 90% for sites with 4 mm and 5 mm, when compared with that of 100% in sites with bone height of above 5 mm. According to implant length the survival rates were 100% for 12 mm, 98.7% for 10 mm, 98.7% for 8 mm and only 47.6% for 6 mm implants. Soft tissue parameters (pocket probing depth, probing attachment level, bleeding on probing and marginal bone levels) did not yield any differences between the osteotome-installed and the conventionally placed implants. More than 90% of the patients were satisfied with the implant therapy and would undergo similar therapy again if necessary. The cost associated with implant therapy was considered to be justified. Conclusion: In conclusion, the osteotome technique was a reliable method for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla, especially at sites with 5 mm or more of preoperative residual bone height and a relatively flat sinus floor. &#169; 2009 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical Oral Implants Research</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>Adolescent</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Adult</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aged, 80 And Over</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Alveolar Bone Loss - Classification</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - Methods</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Bone Matrix - Transplantation</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Bone Substitutes - Therapeutic Use</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Cohort Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Abutments</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implants</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Restoration Failure</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Follow-Up Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Gingival Hemorrhage - Classification</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Humans</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Maxilla - Surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Maxillary Sinus - Surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Middle Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Minerals - Therapeutic Use</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Osteotomy - Instrumentation - Methods</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Patient Satisfaction</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Periodontal Attachment Loss - Classification</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Periodontal Pocket - Classification</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Prospective Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Survival Analysis</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Treatment Outcome</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Young Adult</subject.mesh>
<title>Maxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients&apos; perception</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>19486079</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-66749099062</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>165458</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-66749099062&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>20</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>7</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>667</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>676</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000266696300003</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>4834155</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine
  2. University of Iceland
  3. Prince Philip Dental Hospital
  4. Universität Bern