SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Clinical Evaluation of Patients Treated with Dental Implants

Dental İmplantlar ile Tedavi Edilen Hastaların Klinik Olarak Değerlendirmesi

Yavuz FINDIK
Kemal ÇAVDARLI
Süha TÜRKASLAN
Pages
96–100
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, long-term follow up is required to verify more precise success rates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Aim of the present article is to describe the preliminary results of a short-term follow up retrospective study of 255 dental implants that were consecutively implanted in 75 patients.Material-Method: Two-hundred and fifty-five consecutive Astra implants were performed on seventy-five patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The implants used between 2010 and 2012 and the constructed restorations were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, long-term follow up is required to verify more precise success rates.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Aim of the present article is to describe the preliminary results of a short-term follow up retrospective study of 255 dental implants that were consecutively implanted in 75 patients.Material-Method: Two-hundred and fifty-five consecutive Astra implants were performed on seventy-five patients. The implants used between 2010 and 2012 and the constructed restorations were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The implants were followed up at least 2 years. 139 implants were placed in the maxilla and 116 were in the mandible. The success rate of the implants was (%99,6) as one of the implants were failed in the first year after insertion. The prosthetic restorations were fixed partial denture (196 implants), single crown (49) and lower complete overdenture (5). Within the evaluation period five desimantation and six retentive screw loosening determined among all prosthetic restorations.Conclusion: This short-term follow up report has shown that the success rate of Astra implants is similar to the success rate reported other clinical studies. However, long-term follow up is required to verify more precise success rates.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı 75 hastaya yerleştirilen ve kısa dönemde incelenen 255 adet dental implantın (Astra TECH, Dentsply, A.B.D.) erken dönem sonuçlarını göstermektir.Materyal-Metot: 2010-2012 yılları arasında yetmiş beş hastaya uygulanan 255 adet OsseoSpeed Astra implantın 139' u maksillaya ve 116' sı mandibulaya yerleştirildi. Protetik restorasyonlar sabit köprü (196 implant), tek kuron (49) ve mandibulada implant destekli hareketli protez (5) olarak uygulandı ve protetik restorasyonlar geriye dönük olarak incelendi.Bulgular: İmplantlar en az 2 yıl takip edildi. İmplant cerrahisini takiben 2 hafta içerisinde 1 adet implant kaybedildi. Yerleştirilen implantların iki yıllık başarı yüzdesi %99,6 olarak belirlendi. Uygulanan protetik restorasyonlarda değerlendirme süresi içinde beş adet implant üstü kuronda desimantasyon ve altı adet tutucu vidada gevşeme tespit edildi. Sonuç: Çalışmamızın erten dönem sonuçları, Astra implant sistemleriyle yapılan diğer çalışmaların sonuçlarıyla uyum sağlamaktadır. Ancak, daha doğru başarı oranını belirlemek için uzun dönemli takip gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

FINDIK, Y., ÇAVDARLI, K., TÜRKASLAN, S. (2015). Clinical Evaluation of Patients Treated with Dental Implants. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 96–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/360400

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Shafie H.R. Clinical & Laboratory Manual of Implant Overdentures. 2007;1-3
  2. The Glossary of Prosthetic Terms. J Prosthet Dent 1999,81:39- 110
  3. Carlsson GE, Lindquist LW. Ten-year longitudinal study of masticatory Junction in edentulous patients treated with fixed complete dentures on osseointegrated implants. Int ] Prosthodont 1994;7(5):448-453
  4. Branemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. TissueIntegrated Prostheses. Chicago, IL Quintessence 1985:11-76
  5. El Askary AS, Meffert RM. Griffin T. Why do dental implants fail? Pan I. Implant Dent 1999;8:173-185
  6. Buser D, Weber HP, Bragger V, Balsiger C. Tissue integration of one-stage implants: three-year results of a prospective longitudinal study with hollow cylinder and hollow screw implants. Quintessence Int 1994;25:679-686
  7. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(4):451-457
  8. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1986;1:11-25
  9. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lefeholm J, Br&nemark Pl.Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5(4):347-359
  10. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. The Branemark Osseointegrated Implant. Quisntessence Pub 1989;25-32
  11. Lemmerman KJ, Lemmerman NE Osseointegrated dental implants in private practice: a long-term case series study. J Periodontol 2005, 76Q):310-9
  12. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systemic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin. Periodontol 2002;29(2):197-212 13. Wennstrdm JL, Ekestubbe A.Grdndahl K, Karlsson S, Lindhe J. Implant supported single tooth restorations: a 5 year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32(6):567-574
  13. Kemppainen P, Eskola S, Ylipaavalniemi P. A comparative prospective clinical study of two single-tooth implants: a preliminary report of 102 implants. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(4):382-387
  14. Fugazzotto PA, Vlassis J, Butler B. ITI implant use in private practice: clinical results with 5,526 implants followed up to 72+ months in function. Int ] Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(3):408-412
  15. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco