Literature DB >> 18492083

Success rate of palatal orthodontic implants: a prospective longitudinal study.

Roland Männchen1, Marc Schätzle.   

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to assess the survival and success rates of palatal implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy patients (56 female, 14 male; age 25-6 +/- 10-8 years) receiving Orthosystem (Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) palatal implants from March 1999 to November 2006 were included. The indication was established according to the required anchorage for orthodontic therapy. All implants were placed in a mid-sagittal, median or paramedian palatal location by the same surgeon. They were orthodontically loaded after a healing period of 8-16 weeks (Mean: 12.8 weeks). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the initially 70 consecutively admitted patients, two implants in two patients were not primary stable after installation and had to be removed. Of the 70 initially installed palatal implants, 67 implants or 95.7% osseointegrated successfully and were loaded actively and/or passively for approximately 19 months. Only one implant of the 67 osseointegrated implants lost its stability under orthodontic loading. By the time of re-evaluation, 20 palatal implants were still used for orthodontic therapy, while 46 implants had been removed after completed orthodontic therapy. By only analyzing those, the success rate of the initially installed implants was 92%.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic palatal implants with a rough surface are predictable and highly reliable devices for a multitude of maxillary orthodontic treatment options. The survival and success rates for palatal orthodontic implants are comparable to dental implants installed for dental prostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18492083     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01512.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  6 in total

1.  Spectrum of indications for palatal implants in treatment concepts involving immediate and conventional loading.

Authors:  Britta A Jung; Winfried Harzer; Tomasz Gedrange; Martin Kunkel; Maximilian Moergel; Peter Diedrich; Gabriele Lüdicke; Heiner Wehrbein
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Immediate versus conventional loading of palatal implants in humans: a first report of a multicenter RCT.

Authors:  Britta A Jung; Winfried Harzer; Heinrich Wehrbein; Tomasz Gedrange; Werner Hopfenmüller; Gabriele Lüdicke; Maximilian Moergel; Peter Diedrich; Martin Kunkel
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Does thread design influence relative bone-to-implant contact rate of palatal implants?

Authors:  Britta A Jung; Martin Kunkel; Peter Göllner; Thomas Liechti; Maximilian Moergel; Robert Noelken; Peter Borbély; Heinrich Wehrbein
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-07-10       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Influence of interradicular and palatal placement of orthodontic mini-implants on the success (survival) rate.

Authors:  Jan Hourfar; Dirk Bister; Georgios Kanavakis; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Björn Ludwig
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 2.151

5.  Factors influencing the removal torque of palatal implant used for orthodontic anchorage.

Authors:  Marc Andreas Schätzle; Monika Hersberger-Zurfluh; Raphael Patcas
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.750

6.  Anatomical consideration for optimal position of orthodontic miniscrews in the maxilla: a CBCT appraisal.

Authors:  Maha S Al Amri; Hanadi M Sabban; Doaa H Alsaggaf; Fahad F Alsulaimani; Ghassan A Al-Turki; Mohammad S Al-Zahrani; Khalid H Zawawi
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 1.526

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.