Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2015-03-04, 10:43:31 | version 1.33.01
I research 18 I implants1_2015 Fig. 3a_Teeth loss following trauma rendered hard and soft tissue reconstruction necessary. Fig. 3b_The vertical positioning of the implant combined with a conical connection will guide the prosthetic emergence profile. Figs. 3c & d_Stable soft tissues and nice biological width. Tab. 1_Intra-oral distribution of installed implants according to the position in the jaw. Fig. 3a Fig. 3b Fig. 3c Fig. 3d Central incisor Lateral incisor Canine First premolar Second premolar First molar Second molar Upper jaw (n=248,63.1%) Number 30 30 25 48 42 46 27 % 7.6 7.6 6.4 12.2 10.7 11.7 6.9 Lower jaw (n=145,36.9%) Number 11 5 15 12 18 47 37 % 2.8 1.3 3.8 3.1 4.6 12.0 9.4 However,thereisstillaverystrongdesiretofurther improveoralimplantsand/orsurgicalprocedures,and companiesareinclinedtokeeponmarketingnewim- plantvariants,unfortunatelysometimesevenwithout clinical validation. The aim of this study was to clini- callyevaluateanewimplantwithamoderatelyrough surfacebeforeitbecamecommerciallyavailable.First, the implant's surface roughness was examined. Two privatepracticeswerealsoaskedtotreataseriesofpa- tientswithdifferentindications,medicalbackgrounds andjawbonedimensionsusingthisnewimplant. _Materials and methods The implant's surface roughness was examined at three levels (Fig. 1): at the implant's shoulder, in the middleoftheimplantbodyandattheapex.Thisanaly- siswasdonewithaWykoOpticalProfiler(Veeco,New York,USA)andamagnificationof50x.Electronicscans oftheseareaswerealsomadewithaSEM,JSM-6610LV (JEOL,Tokyo,Japan). This retrospective clinical study was performed at two private practices in France (Jean Pierre Brun and Ph.Leclercq).Anumberof“consecutive”patients,who received one or more implants to replace one or sev- eralteethintheupperorlowerjaw,wereincluded.The implantswereplacedinextractionholesandinhealed sites,sometimesincombinationwithguidedbonere- generation.Theprotocolwasusuallyperformedintwo stages. The average age of patients receiving implant placementwas59.6years.137patientswereincluded: 56 men and 81 women. No special inclusion or exclu- sion criteria were used. Patients were not admitted to the study if they presented one of the following ex- ceptional situations: (1) excessive alcohol or medica- tion use; (2) a health condition not allowing surgical procedures; (3) unfavourable circumstances such as Number 30302548424627 % 7.67.66.412.210.711.76.9 Number 1151512184737 % 2.81.33.83.14.612.09.4