Clinical comparison of short and conventional implants placed in the posterior region of the mandible. A pilot study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: IBELLI,Guilherme Siqueira
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: ASSAF,Fátimah, SANTOS,Anne Beatriz Souza, SANTOS,Michele Bastos Porto, OLIVEIRA,Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de, MARGONAR,Rogério, QUEIROZ,Thallita Pereira
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