File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  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

TitleMaxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perception
Authors
Issue Date2009
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 7, p. 667-676 How to Cite?
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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154570
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 3.889
2014 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.290
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BEen_US
dc.contributor.authorRast, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrägger, Uen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchmidlin, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorZwahlen, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:26:13Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:26:13Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 7, p. 667-676en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154570-
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.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subject.meshAdolescenten_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAgeden_US
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 And Overen_US
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Bone Loss - Classificationen_US
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Ridge Augmentation - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Matrix - Transplantationen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Substitutes - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshCohort Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Abutmentsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Implantsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supporteden_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failureen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshGingival Hemorrhage - Classificationen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshMaxillary Sinus - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshMinerals - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshOsteotomy - Instrumentation - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshPatient Satisfactionen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Attachment Loss - Classificationen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Pocket - Classificationen_US
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysisen_US
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.subject.meshYoung Adulten_US
dc.titleMaxillary sinus floor elevation using the (transalveolar) osteotome technique with or without grafting material. Part I: Implant survival and patients' perceptionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid19486079-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-66749099062en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros165458-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-66749099062&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume20en_US
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.spage667en_US
dc.identifier.epage676en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000266696300003-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPjetursson, BE=6506841442en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRast, C=35070274300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBrägger, U=7005538598en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSchmidlin, K=24476651100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZwahlen, M=7004748418en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike4834155-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats