Biomedical subjects

Kees Heydenrijk

Publications and source records attributed to Kees Heydenrijk.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

Two-stage IMZ implants and ITI implants inserted in a single-stage procedure. A prospective comparative study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two-stage implant system in a single-stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap at crestal level and to monitor the microflora in the peri-implant area. Forty edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V-VI) participated in this study. After randomisation, 20 patients received two IMZ implants inserted in a single-stage procedure and 20 patients received two ITI implants. After 3 months, overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar and clip attachment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after denture insertion and 6 and 12 months later. Twelve months after loading, peri-implant samples were collected with sterile paper points and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture techniques. One IMZ implant was lost due to insufficient osseointegration. With regard to the clinical parameters at the 12 months evaluation, significant differences for plaque score and probing pocket depth (IMZ: mean 3.3 mm, ITI: mean 2.9 mm) were found between the two groups. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm for both groups. Prevotella intermedia was detected more often in the ITI group (12 implants) than in the IMZ group (three implants). Porphyromonas gingivalis was found in three patients. In one of these patients an implant showed bone loss of 1.6 mm between T0 and T12. Some associations were found between clinical parameters and the target microorganisms in the ITI group. These associations were not present in the IMZ group. The short-term results indicate that two-stage implants inserted in a single-stage procedure may be as predictable as one-stage implants. The microgap at crestal level in nonsubmerged IMZ implants seems to have no adverse influence on the peri-implant microbiological colonisation and of crestal bone loss in the first year of functioning. The peri-implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without signs of peri-implantitis during the evaluation period of 1 year.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

PubMed2002

Two-part implants inserted in a one-stage or a two-stage procedure. A prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a two-part implant system in a one-stage procedure and to monitor the microflora in the peri-implant area in relation to clinical and radiographic outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After randomisation, 40 edentulous patients (Cawood & Howell class V-VI) received two IMZ implants in the anterior mandible inserted by either a one-stage (n = 20) or a two-stage (n = 20) surgical procedure for overdenture treatment. A standardised clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed after denture insertion as well as 6 and 12 months thereafter. Twelve months after loading, peri-implant samples were collected and analysed for the presence of putative periodontal pathogens using culture technique. RESULTS: No striking differences were found between the two groups with regard to the clinical parameters during the evaluation period. The mean bone loss in the first year of functioning was 0.6 mm in both groups. With regard to the gingiva score, plaque score, bleeding score or bone loss between T0 and T12, no associations were found with the presence of the cultured microorganisms. An association was present between pockets >or= 4 mm and the presence of Peptostreptococcus micros in the two-stage group. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term results indicate that two-part implants inserted in a one-stage procedure may be as predictable as inserted in the common two-stage procedure. The peri-implant sulcus can and does harbour potential periodontal pathogens without significant signs of tissue breakdown.

Colony Count, Microbial↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Microbiota around root-form endosseous implants: a review of the literature.

Although high success rates for root-form endosseous implants have been reported, failures occasionally occur, and these implants must be removed. At least 10% of the failures have been suggested to be the result of peri-implantitis. There is some evidence that periodontal pathogens, mainly those belonging to the group of gram-negative anaerobic rods, play a role in the etiology of peri-implantitis. This article provides an overview of the literature associated with common peri-implant microbiology and an assessment as to whether bacteria associated with periodontitis exert a possible risk for peri-implant tissue breakdown. The peri-implant area is colonized by a large variety of oral microbial complexes. The microflora of the oral cavity prior to implant placement determines the composition of the microflora in the peri-implant area. Implants involved in peri-implantitis are colonized with large amounts of gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, including Fusobacteria, spirochetes, Bacteroides forsythus, and "black-pigmented bacteria" such as Prevotella intermedia, Prevotella nigrescens, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Also, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans can be isolated from these lesions. Thus, the microflora of peri-implantitis lesions resembles that of adult or refractory periodontitis. However, the presence of periodontal pathogens does not always lead to a destructive process. Therefore, the etiologic role of specific microorganisms in implant failure related to infection is still not resolved. Controversy remains as to whether organisms recovered from the original microflora cause the failure (and if so to what extent) or merely result from the infection. Nevertheless, there is accumulating evidence that bacteria cause the disease, while the individual's genetic makeup and environmental influences determine the severity of the disease.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Clinical and radiologic evaluation of 2-stage IMZ implants placed in a single-stage procedure: 2-year results of a prospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a 2-stage implant system in a single-stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap between the implant and the abutment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients (Cawood class V or VI) participated in this study. After randomization, 20 patients received 2 IMZ implants placed in a single-stage procedure, 20 patients received 2 IMZ implants placed in the traditional 2-stage procedure, and 20 patients were treated with 2 ITI implants (single-stage procedure). The implants were placed in the canine area of the mandible. After 3 months, mandibular overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar-and-clip attachment. A standardized clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after prosthesis placement and after 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: One IMZ implant of the 1-stage group and 1 IMZ implant of the 2-stage group were lost after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Apart from several significant but clinically irrelevant differences, the 3 groups did not appear to differ markedly with regard to clinical parameters during the evaluation period. The mean bone loss within the first 2 years of functioning (1.1 mm IMZ 1-stage, 0.8 mm IMZ 2-stage, 1.2 mm ITI) was comparable for the 3 groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that dental implants designed for a submerged implantation procedure can also be used in a single-stage procedure and may be as predictable as when the same implants used in a 2-stage procedure or as 1-stage implants. Placement of the microgap at the crestal level in 2-stage implants did not appear to have an adverse effect on the amount of peri-implant bone loss at 2 years in this study population.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗