Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Odontologia da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-25772017000600319 |
Resumo: | Abstract Objective To evaluate and correlate the values of radiographic bone density, peri-implant bone height and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of short or conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible after installing a prosthesis. Material and method Eleven patients were selected for this prospective parallel pilot study. The prostheses were supported by two types of implants: short implants (n = 18) (5.0 x 5.5 mm and 5.0 x 7.0 mm) and conventional implants (n = 23) (4.0 x10 mm and 4.0 x 11.5 mm). The implants were evaluated by RFA, by measuring the bone height, and peri-implant bone density. The implants were evaluated at the periods T0 (immediately after installation of the prosthesis), T1 (after 90 days), and T2 (after 180 days). Result There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to radiographic bone density (152.50 ± 15.39 vs. 157.60 ± 28.46, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2), stability of the implants (Conventional implants: 66.76 ± 10.39 at T0, and 61.85 ± 8.38 at T2 vs. Short implants: 57.50 ± 12.17 at T0, and 61.53 ± 7.39 at T2) and peri-implant bone loss (0.03 mm vs.-0.17 mm, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2). Additionally, a significant correlation between the evaluated parameters was not detected. Conclusion The short and conventional implants presented similar stability, bone level and density after the activation of occlusion loading. |
id |
UNESP-16_6b1f1e6d2719e71174d764dcef745a5a |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1807-25772017000600319 |
network_acronym_str |
UNESP-16 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot studyBone resorptionbone densityprostheses and implantsAbstract Objective To evaluate and correlate the values of radiographic bone density, peri-implant bone height and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of short or conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible after installing a prosthesis. Material and method Eleven patients were selected for this prospective parallel pilot study. The prostheses were supported by two types of implants: short implants (n = 18) (5.0 x 5.5 mm and 5.0 x 7.0 mm) and conventional implants (n = 23) (4.0 x10 mm and 4.0 x 11.5 mm). The implants were evaluated by RFA, by measuring the bone height, and peri-implant bone density. The implants were evaluated at the periods T0 (immediately after installation of the prosthesis), T1 (after 90 days), and T2 (after 180 days). Result There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to radiographic bone density (152.50 ± 15.39 vs. 157.60 ± 28.46, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2), stability of the implants (Conventional implants: 66.76 ± 10.39 at T0, and 61.85 ± 8.38 at T2 vs. Short implants: 57.50 ± 12.17 at T0, and 61.53 ± 7.39 at T2) and peri-implant bone loss (0.03 mm vs.-0.17 mm, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2). Additionally, a significant correlation between the evaluated parameters was not detected. Conclusion The short and conventional implants presented similar stability, bone level and density after the activation of occlusion loading.Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-25772017000600319Revista de Odontologia da UNESP v.46 n.6 2017reponame:Revista de Odontologia da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESP10.1590/1807-2577.04017info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIBELLI,Guilherme SiqueiraASSAF,FátimahSANTOS,Anne Beatriz SouzaSANTOS,Michele Bastos PortoOLIVEIRA,Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes deMARGONAR,RogérioQUEIROZ,Thallita Pereiraeng2017-12-11T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1807-25772017000600319Revistahttps://www.revodontolunesp.com.br/PUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||adriana@foar.unesp.br1807-25770101-1774opendoar:2017-12-11T00:00Revista de Odontologia da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
title |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
spellingShingle |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study IBELLI,Guilherme Siqueira Bone resorption bone density prostheses and implants |
title_short |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
title_full |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
title_fullStr |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
title_sort |
Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study |
author |
IBELLI,Guilherme Siqueira |
author_facet |
IBELLI,Guilherme Siqueira ASSAF,Fátimah SANTOS,Anne Beatriz Souza SANTOS,Michele Bastos Porto OLIVEIRA,Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de MARGONAR,Rogério QUEIROZ,Thallita Pereira |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
ASSAF,Fátimah SANTOS,Anne Beatriz Souza SANTOS,Michele Bastos Porto OLIVEIRA,Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de MARGONAR,Rogério QUEIROZ,Thallita Pereira |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
IBELLI,Guilherme Siqueira ASSAF,Fátimah SANTOS,Anne Beatriz Souza SANTOS,Michele Bastos Porto OLIVEIRA,Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de MARGONAR,Rogério QUEIROZ,Thallita Pereira |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Bone resorption bone density prostheses and implants |
topic |
Bone resorption bone density prostheses and implants |
description |
Abstract Objective To evaluate and correlate the values of radiographic bone density, peri-implant bone height and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) of short or conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible after installing a prosthesis. Material and method Eleven patients were selected for this prospective parallel pilot study. The prostheses were supported by two types of implants: short implants (n = 18) (5.0 x 5.5 mm and 5.0 x 7.0 mm) and conventional implants (n = 23) (4.0 x10 mm and 4.0 x 11.5 mm). The implants were evaluated by RFA, by measuring the bone height, and peri-implant bone density. The implants were evaluated at the periods T0 (immediately after installation of the prosthesis), T1 (after 90 days), and T2 (after 180 days). Result There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to radiographic bone density (152.50 ± 15.39 vs. 157.60 ± 28.46, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2), stability of the implants (Conventional implants: 66.76 ± 10.39 at T0, and 61.85 ± 8.38 at T2 vs. Short implants: 57.50 ± 12.17 at T0, and 61.53 ± 7.39 at T2) and peri-implant bone loss (0.03 mm vs.-0.17 mm, for conventional and short implants, respectively at T2). Additionally, a significant correlation between the evaluated parameters was not detected. Conclusion The short and conventional implants presented similar stability, bone level and density after the activation of occlusion loading. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-25772017000600319 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-25772017000600319 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1807-2577.04017 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP v.46 n.6 2017 reponame:Revista de Odontologia da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP |
collection |
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||adriana@foar.unesp.br |
_version_ |
1748958560380780544 |