Polizzi G, Rangert B, Lekholm U, Gualini F, Lindström H. Brånemark System® Wide Platform Implants for Single Molar Replacement: Clinical Evaluation of Prospective and Retrospective Materials.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007;
2:61-9. [PMID:
11359265 DOI:
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00107.x]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The use of oral implants for single tooth replacement has become a predictable treatment modality. As single tooth loss is most common in posterior areas of the jaws, the use of the protocol is of specific interest in those regions. New implant designs aimed at this purpose have also been introduced.
PURPOSE
The aim of the study was to present the outcomes for wide diameter implant treatment when being used in posterior areas of the jaws.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper presents the 3-year results of a prospective multicenter study (three clinics; n = 38 implants) and the 1-year results from a retrospective multicenter study (two clinics; n = 20 implants) on wide diameter implants for single molar replacement. Based on the hypothesis that dense bone in posterior mandibles would benefit from careful surgery and longer remodeling time, the influences of surgical technique and healing time on implant success and bone resorption were particularly addressed.
RESULTS
The outcome demonstrated a good predictability for Brånemark System Wide Platform implants, at least short term, when used as single molar support (prospective group cumulative success rate [CSR] = 92% after 3 years; retrospective group CSR = 95% after 1 year). The increased mechanical strength of the wide platform implant/abutment complex also turned out to be important for mechanical stability.
CONCLUSIONS
The study indicated that it was important to carefully perform surgery in posterior mandibles in order to preserve and optimally use the existing dense bone. It was suggested that from bone healing and remodeling aspects, posterior mandibles may be more demanding to handle than corresponding areas of maxillae.
Collapse