a retrospective study on a series of 556 zimmer dental implants
Clicks: 385
ID: 158065
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
385 views
45 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #11 of 59 articles by views in Mycoses
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: One-stage surgery with immediate loading is possible, with good clinical results. Many types of dental implants are available in the market. Zimmer Dental Implants (ZDIs) have been used since the nineties, but few reports have analyzed the clinical outcome of these fixtures. We planned a retrospective study on a series 566 ZDIs, to evaluate their clinical outcome.
Materials and Methods: In the period between January 2007 and June 2011, 125 patients were treatetd with ZDIs. The last check-up was performed in June 2012, with a mean follow-up period of 17 ± 9 months (minimum – maximum, 8-4 months). ZDIs were inserted as follows: 295 (53.1%) in the maxilla and 261 (46.9%) in the mandible. There were 480 (86.3%) Screw-vents, 51 (9.2%) Swiss Plusses, and 25 (4.5%) Splines. Sixteen, 355, 34, 90, 55, and six fixtures had a diameter of 3.25, 3.7, 3.75, 4.1, 4.7, and 4.8 mm, respectively. Twenty-eight, 145, 5, 217, 8, 141, and 12 implants hade a length of 8, 10, 11, 11.5, 12, 13, and 14 mm, respectively. The implants were inserted to replace 136 (24.5%) incisors, 80 (14.4%) cuspids, 198 (35.6%) premolars, and 142 (25.5%) molars.
Results: No implants were lost (i.e., SRV = 100%). Among the studied variables, only those for the jaws were statistically significant, with a better outcome for implants inserted in the maxilla ( P = 0.017).
Conclusions: ZDIs are reliable devices to be used in implantology, althougth a higher marginal bone loss has to be expected when these implants are inserted in mandible.
| Reference Key |
soardi2012dentala
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Carlo Maria Soardi;Ezio Zandanel;Elena Rebuffini;Rebuffini2 Carinci |
| Journal | Mycoses |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.4103/1735-3327.109748
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.