| 1. |
- Ekestubbe, Annika, 1953, et al.
(author)
-
Low-dose tomographic techniques for dental implant planning.
- 1996
-
In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. - 0882-2786. ; 11:5, s. 650-9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Image quality in preimplant computerized tomography (CT) examinations made with different radiation doses (40 to 280 mAs) and scanning modes (standard and helical axial, 15-degree angled, and frontal) and in conventional spiral tomography (Scanora) was compared. Mandibular canal and alveolar bone crest visibility was evaluated in images from mandibular jaw segments. Visibility was unaffected by radiation dose in CT examinations except in frontal scanning, where a small actual difference was statistically significant. Differences among CT scanning modes and between CT and conventional spiral tomography were highly significant. Low-dose mandibular preimplant tomography can be performed with CT using lower-than-normal radiation doses or with conventional spiral tomography.
|
|
| 2. |
- Friberg, Bertil, 1950, et al.
(author)
-
Clinical outcome of Brånemark System implants of various diameters: a retrospective study.
- 2002
-
In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. - 0882-2786. ; 17:5, s. 671-7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the 3 different diameters of Brånemark System implants, with special focus on the 5.0-mm-diameter implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (99 jaws) with a mean age of 62 years were included in this retrospective report. The mean follow-up period was 2 years and 8 months. A total of 379 Brånemark System implants (3.75 mm diameter, n = 146; 4.0 mm diameter, n = 76; 5.0 mm diameter, n = 157) were placed in 29 edentulous and 70 partially edentulous jaws. RESULTS: Eight of the 146 implants in the 3.75-mm-diameter group failed (5.5%). The corresponding figures for the 4.0- and 5.0-mm-diameter implants were 3 of 76 (3.9%) and 7 of 157 (4.5%), respectively. DISCUSSION: All failures were recorded in maxillae, ie, 18 of the 298 placed, and the majority of these were found in bone quantity group B and quality group 2. Only 3 implants of 131 failed in bone judged as quality 4. The marginal bone loss was low for the 3 implant diameter groups. CONCLUSION: The favorable outcome in bone of poor quality is ascribed partly to the use of an adapted preparation technique and extended healing periods for achievement of the best primary and secondary implant stability possible.
|
|
