OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical outcome of a prospective two-center study of second-generation palatal implants 6 months after functional loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2006, 30 patients aged 12 to 41 years were included in the study. In all patients, orthodontic treatment required stationary anchorage. The palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were placed in the median region of the anterior palate. RESULTS: All implants were initially stable at the time of placement. However, two (6.7%) were lost during the unloaded healing period. The remaining 28 (93.3%) were subjected to functional loading after a mean healing period of 12 weeks. Typical signs of slight superficial inflammation were observed in the peri-implant mucosa (n = 28). During the orthodontic loading phase, the implants were equipped with either a modified pendulum appliance for distalization or a transpalatal arch for stationary anchorage to the posterior teeth. No implant loosening or loss was registered during the active treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of palatal implants of the second generation was low (6.7%). Slight inflammatory reactions of peri-implant tissue caused neither implant loss nor pain.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical outcome of a prospective two-center study of second-generation palatal implants 6 months after functional loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2006, 30 patients aged 12 to 41 years were included in the study. In all patients, orthodontic treatment required stationary anchorage. The palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were placed in the median region of the anterior palate. RESULTS: All implants were initially stable at the time of placement. However, two (6.7%) were lost during the unloaded healing period. The remaining 28 (93.3%) were subjected to functional loading after a mean healing period of 12 weeks. Typical signs of slight superficial inflammation were observed in the peri-implant mucosa (n = 28). During the orthodontic loading phase, the implants were equipped with either a modified pendulum appliance for distalization or a transpalatal arch for stationary anchorage to the posterior teeth. No implant loosening or loss was registered during the active treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of palatal implants of the second generation was low (6.7%). Slight inflammatory reactions of peri-implant tissue caused neither implant loss nor pain.
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
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Dirk Bister; Georgios Kanavakis; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Björn Ludwig Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 2.151
Authors: Sachin Chhatwani; Viola Rose-Zierau; Bassel Haddad; Mohammed Almuzian; Christian Kirschneck; Gholamreza Danesh Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 2.151