Ceramic-coated implant systems.

R M Meffert

doi:10.1177/08959374990130010701

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11276740

Ceramic-coated implant systems.

R M Meffert

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Practitioners have used hydroxyapatite-coated (HA-coated) endosseous and subperiosteal implants in various forms for many years. These have included root forms in both screw and cylindrical shapes, blades, and subperiosteals. The clinical predictability remains controversial and subject to claims and counterclaims. The early days of dental implantology involving root-form implants recommended their placement in fully edentulous cases only, and anterior to the maxillary sinus and mental foramen. Today's philosophy and rationale of dental implantology include the placement of a single implant replacing a missing natural tooth (especially where the teeth adjacent to the edentulous site have no caries or restorative experience). Implants are used to replace the natural dentition in one quadrant/segment, often preceded or accompanied by ridge augmentation and/or sinus grafting if sufficient bone is not present. So we have to address the clinical predictability of survival in terms of indications, quantity, and quality of bone. Clinical data and experience suggest that hydroxyapatite-coated (HA) dental implants may (and possibly should) be used in (1) Type IV bone, (2) fresh extraction sites, (3) grafted maxillary and/or nasal sinuses, or (4) with short implants (< or = 10 mm in length).

Explore related subjects

Alveolar Process Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Ceramics Coated Materials, Biocompatible Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implantation, Subperiosteal Dental Implants Dental Implants, Single-Tooth Dental Prosthesis Design Durapatite Humans Maxillary Sinus Survival Analysis Tooth Socket Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R M Meffert. 1999. Ceramic-coated implant systems.. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374990130010701

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Fully vs. partially rough implants in maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a randomized-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare implants with a rough surface in their whole length (FR) with implants having a 2 mm coronal machined portion (PR) when used in association with a sinus-lift procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with 2 mm< or =x< or =9 mm residual alveolar crest were prosthetically restored with implants after a staged sinus-lift procedure using osteotomes. In 13 randomly chosen patients, no more than one FR implant was placed (test group), while the rest were PR implants. The other 13 patients received only PR implants (control group). For comparisons, only one implant from each patient was used, i.e., from the test group only the 13 FR implants were used, while from the control group, one PR implant was randomly chosen. The presence/absence of plaque, BOP, PPD and REC were registered at the day of delivery of the restorations and after 1 year. Residual alveolar crest height and marginal bone levels around the implants were evaluated on standardized periapical radiographs taken at various stages. RESULTS: Four FR and two PR implants were lost, and the cumulative survival rate was 82.9% (six lost out of 35). There were no significant differences between the two groups. Implant type, residual alveolar crest height, time of osseointegration, time of implant loading and smoking did not seem to influence implant survival. CONCLUSIONS: FR and PR implants placed in augmented sinuses did not differ in their clinical performance.

Alveolar Process↗

PubMed2007

Remodeling the dentofacial skeleton: the biological basis of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics.

Orthodontic tooth movement is dependent upon the remodeling of the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone by mechanical means. Facial sutures are also fibrous articulations, and by remodeling these joints, one can alter the positional relationships of the bones of the facial skeleton. As might be expected from the structure and mobility of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), this articulation is more resistant to mechanical deformation, and whether functional mandibular displacement can alter the growth of the condyle remains controversial. Clinical investigations of the effects of the Andresen activator and its variants on dentofacial growth suggest that the changes are essentially dento-alveolar. However, with the popularity of active functional appliances, such as the Herbst and twin-block based on 'jumping the bite', attention has focused on how they achieve dentofacial change. Animal experimentation enables informed decisions to be made regarding the effects of orthodontic treatment on the facial skeleton at the tissue, cellular, and molecular levels. Both rat and monkey models have been widely used, and the following conclusions can be drawn from such experimentation: (1) Facial sutures readily respond to changes in their mechanical environment; (2) anterior mandibular displacement in rat models does not increase the mitotic activity of cells within the condyle to be of clinical significance, and (3) mandibular displacement in non-human primates initiates remodeling activity within the TMJ and can alter condylar growth direction. This last conclusion may have clinical utility, particularly in an actively growing child.

Alveolar Process↗

PubMed2007

Effects of occlusal stimuli on alveolar/jaw bone formation.

Occlusion is known to influence the growth and development of the craniofacial complex. However, the consequences of occlusal hypofunction, or its recovery, on the amount of formation and development of alveolar bone and the jaw are not fully understood. Therefore, the present study was designed to elucidate the relationship between the occlusal stimuli and alveolar and jaw bone growth by the use of a hypofunction/recovered occlusal function model in growing rats. Bone histomorphometric analyses, including bone apposition rate and mineral apposition rate, were evaluated in double-labeled frontal sections of mandibular second molars. Results showed that occlusal hypofunction significantly suppressed alveolar and jaw bone formation compared with that in animals growing normally (p < 0.05). However, recovered occlusal function induced an enhancement in jaw bone formation. These results indicate the influence of occlusal function on alveolar and jaw bone formation during the growth period.

Alveolar Process↗