Article

Osseointegration and its experimental background.

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.72). 10/1983; 50(3):399-410. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
Source: PubMed
3 Bookmarks
 · 
388 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: /st> The procedure for making impressions of multiple implants continues to be a challenge, despite the various techniques proposed to date. The authors' objective in this case report is to describe a novel digital impression method for multiple implants involving the use of stereophotogrammetric technology. The authors present three cases of patients who had multiple implants in which the impressions were obtained with this technology. Initially, a stereo camera with an infrared flash detects the position of special flag abutments screwed into the implants. This process is based on registering the x, y and z coordinates of each implant and the distances between them. This information is converted into a stereolithographic (STL) file. To add the soft-tissue information, the user must obtain another STL file by using an intraoral or extraoral scanner. In the first case presented, this information was acquired from the plaster model with an extraoral scanner; in the second case, from a Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) file of the plaster model obtained with cone-beam computed tomography; and in the third case, through an intraoral digital impression with a confocal scanner. /st> In the three cases, the frameworks manufactured from this technique showed a correct clinical passive fit. At follow-up appointments held six, 12 and 24 months after insertion of the prosthesis, no complications were reported. /st> Stereophotogrammetric technology is a viable, accurate and easy technique for making multiple implant impressions. Practical Implications Clinicians can use stereophotogrammetric technology to acquire reliable digital master models as a first step in producing frameworks with a correct passive fit.
    Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 04/2014; 145(4):338-44. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Difficulties are involved in impression making with conventional open impression trays. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of transferring implant impressions with a self-perforating impression tray. A reference model of a mandible was fabricated, and 4 implants were placed in the regions of the first premolars and lateral incisors (implants 1, 2, 3, 4). Ten impressions of the reference model with polyvinyl siloxane were made for each group; control (conventional open impression tray) and test (self-perforating impression tray; Miratray Implant). A metal bar was screw-retained on implant 1, and the gaps generated at the vestibular face of implants 3 and 4 were measured by optical microcopy. The 2-way ANOVA and least square difference post hoc test were used (α=.05). Higher mean (±SD) values were obtained for the test group than for the control group for both implants: implant 3: 150 ±84 μm for the test group, 73 ±63 μm for the control group (P=.019); implant 4: 129 ±65 μm for the test group, 62 ±61 μm for the control group (P=.04). The self-perforating impression tray provided less accuracy than the conventional open tray.
    The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 04/2014; · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives.This study aimed to evaluate the effect of immediate and delayed loading of orthodontic micro-implants on bone-implant contact. Materials and Methods. Sixty four micro-implants were implanted in dog’s jaw bone.The micro-implants were divided into loaded and unloaded (control) groups.The control group had two subgroups: four and eight weeks being implanted.The loaded group had two subgroups of immediate loading and delayed (after four weeks healing) loading. Loaded samples were subjected to 200g load for four weeks. After sacrificing the animals micro-implants and surrounding tissues were observed histologically. Boneimplant contact ratios (BIC) were calculated and different groups’ results were compared by three-way ANOVA. Results. Mean survival rate was 96.7% in general. Survival rates were 96.7%, 94.4% and 100% for control, immediate and delayed loaded groups, respectively. BIC values were not significantly different in loaded and control groups, immediate and delayed loading groups, and pressure and tension sides. Mandibular micro-implants had significantly higher BIC than maxillary ones in immediate loading, 4-weeks control, and 8-weeks control groups (P = 0.021, P = 0.009, P = 0.003, resp.). Conclusion Immediate or delayed loading of micro-implants in dog did not cause significant difference in Bone-implant contact which could be concluded that healing time had not significant effect on micro-implant stability.
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation. 04/2014; Volume 2014(1):1-7.