1,721,224 research outputs found
Implant surface roughness alterations induced by different prophylactic procedures: an in vitro study
No full textAIM:
To evaluate surface roughness alterations at the smooth neck of dental implants after the use of eight different prophylactic procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
50 tissue level implants (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were used for the present investigation. The smooth collar of each implant was divided into two segments, each treated with one of eight cleaning procedures: use of a rubber cup (RCZ) or a brush (BZ) combined with an abrasive paste containing zirconium or a paste derived from perlite (RCP, BP); use of 2 composite resin burs reinforced by zirconium glass fibers (F1, F2); and use of an air-polishing system with glycine powder and two power settings (AP1, AP2). The qualitative alterations were recorded by means of a laser profilometer and the mean roughness (Ra ) and mean roughness profile depth (Rz ) were reported. Twenty untreated surfaces were used as controls.
RESULTS:
The implant collars treated with RCZ (Ra = 0.33 μm, Rz = 2.43 μm) or BZ (Ra = 0.30 μm, Rz = 3.70 μm) yielded the highest roughness values, followed by the surfaces treated with RCP (Ra = 0.28 μm, Rz = 2.02 μm), with BP (Ra = 0.25 μm, Rz = 2.16 μm) and by the use of F1 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.22 μm) and F2 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.04 μm). The lowest roughness values were observed in the AP1 (Ra = 0.23 μm, Rz = 1.60 μm) and AP2 (Ra = 0.16 μm, Rz = 1.06 μm) group, respectively. Implant collars treated with AP2 yielded statistically significantly lower (P = 0.01) Rz values compared with untreated surfaces.
CONCLUSION:
All tested procedures did not increase implant surface roughness significantly. Treatment with an air-powder abrasive system at high-pressure setting resulted in a smoothening of the implant collar surface
Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study.
Full text linkAIM
To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme.
RESULTS
Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03).
CONCLUSIONS
Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss
Elicitation of necrosis in Vigna unguiculata Walp. by homogeneous Aspergillus niger endo-polygalacturonase and by α-D-galacturonate oligomers
No full textMechanical and technical risks in implant therapy
No full textPURPOSE: To systematically appraise the impact of mechanical/technical risk factors on implant-supported reconstructions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A MEDLINE (PubMed) database search from 1966 to April 2008 was conducted. The search strategy was a combination of MeSH terms and the key words: design, dental implant(s), risk, prosthodontics, fixed prosthodontics, fixed partial denture(s), fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), fixed reconstruction(s), oral rehabilitation, bridge(s), removable partial denture(s), overdenture(s). Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies with a mean follow-up of at least 4 years were included. The material evaluated in each study had to include cases with/without exposure to the risk factor. RESULTS: From 3,568 articles, 111 were selected for full text analysis. Of the 111 articles, 33 were included for data extraction after grouping the outcomes into 10 risk factors: type of retentive elements supporting overdentures, presence of cantilever extension(s), cemented versus screw-retained FDPs, angled/angulated abutments, bruxism, crown/implant ratio, length of the suprastructure, prosthetic materials, number of implants supporting an FDP, and history of mechanical/technical complications. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a metal framework in overdentures, the presence of cantilever extension(s) > 15 mm and of bruxism, the length of the reconstruction, and a history of repeated complications were associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. The type of retention, the presence of angled abutments, the crown-implant ratio, and the number of implants supporting an FDP were not associated with increased mechanical/technical complications. None of the mechanical/technical risk factors had an impact on implant survival and success rates
- …
