The aim of the present retrospective analysis was to assess peri-implant tissue conditions and document peri-implant tissue stability in C-Tech implants when placed simultaneously with a GBR augmentation procedure.
Table 1 Participating patients and the number and site of the inserted implants
author: Jonas Lorenz,Henriette Lerner, Robert A Sader, Shahram Ghanaati | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Patient
Gender (m/f)
Age (years)
Implant localization (region)
Implant diameter (mm)
Implant length (mm)
Augmentation material
Prosthetic rehabilitation
1
f
50
32
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
r.p
34
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
r.p
42
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
r.p
44
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
r.p
2
m
61
36
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
37
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
46
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
47
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
3
m
48
26
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
4
f
54
21
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
5
f
45
23
3.5
13
HA
f.p.
26
4.3
11
HA
f.p.
27
4.3
11
HA
f.p.
6
m
56
32
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
42
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
7
m
54
36
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
46
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
36
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
8
f
73
16
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
26
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
9
m
64
27
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
10
f
62
15
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
16
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
17
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
24
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
36
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
46
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
11
f
75
35
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
36
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
12
f
52
16
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
13
m
46
24
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
25
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
26
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
46
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
14
f
66
36
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
37
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
15
f
63
11
3.5
13
HA
f.p.
16
f
53
36
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
46
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
47
3.5
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
17
f
51
14
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
15
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
18
m
60
27
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
47
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
19
m
75
22
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
24
3.5
13
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
20
m
62
26
4.3
11
HA + β-TCP
f.p.
Total 20
Total 11*f; 9*m
Mean 58.5
Total 47; 23*u.j, 24*l.j.
Total 32*3.5 mm, 15*4.3 mm
Total 37*11 mm, 10*13 mm
Total 43*HA + β-TCP, 4*HA
Total 43*f.p.,
4*r.p
Serial posts:
-
Investigation of peri-implant in implants
-
Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
-
Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
-
Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (3)
-
Methods: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
-
Methods: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
-
Results: Investigation of peri-implant in implants
-
Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
-
Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
-
Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (3)
-
Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants
-
Table 1 Participating patients and the number and site of the inserted implants
-
Table 2 Results from the clinical and radiological 3-year follow-up investigation
-
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the technical characteristics
-
Figure 2. Clinical image of patient 4
| Patient | Gender (m/f) | Age (years) | Implant localization (region) | Implant diameter (mm) | Implant length (mm) | Augmentation material | Prosthetic rehabilitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | f | 50 | 32 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | r.p |
| 34 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | r.p | |||
| 42 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | r.p | |||
| 44 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | r.p | |||
| 2 | m | 61 | 36 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 37 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 46 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 47 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 3 | m | 48 | 26 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 4 | f | 54 | 21 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 5 | f | 45 | 23 | 3.5 | 13 | HA | f.p. |
| 26 | 4.3 | 11 | HA | f.p. | |||
| 27 | 4.3 | 11 | HA | f.p. | |||
| 6 | m | 56 | 32 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 42 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 7 | m | 54 | 36 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 46 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 36 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 8 | f | 73 | 16 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 26 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 9 | m | 64 | 27 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 10 | f | 62 | 15 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 16 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 17 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 24 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 36 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 46 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 11 | f | 75 | 35 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 36 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 12 | f | 52 | 16 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 13 | m | 46 | 24 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 25 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 26 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 46 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 14 | f | 66 | 36 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 37 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 15 | f | 63 | 11 | 3.5 | 13 | HA | f.p. |
| 16 | f | 53 | 36 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 46 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 47 | 3.5 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 17 | f | 51 | 14 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 15 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 18 | m | 60 | 27 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 47 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 19 | m | 75 | 22 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| 24 | 3.5 | 13 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. | |||
| 20 | m | 62 | 26 | 4.3 | 11 | HA + β-TCP | f.p. |
| Total 20 | Total 11*f; 9*m | Mean 58.5 | Total 47; 23*u.j, 24*l.j. | Total 32*3.5 mm, 15*4.3 mm | Total 37*11 mm, 10*13 mm | Total 43*HA + β-TCP, 4*HA | Total 43*f.p., 4*r.p |
- Investigation of peri-implant in implants
- Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
- Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
- Background: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (3)
- Methods: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
- Methods: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
- Results: Investigation of peri-implant in implants
- Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (1)
- Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (2)
- Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants (3)
- Discussion: Investigation of peri-implant in implants
- Table 1 Participating patients and the number and site of the inserted implants
- Table 2 Results from the clinical and radiological 3-year follow-up investigation
- Figure 1. Schematic representation of the technical characteristics
- Figure 2. Clinical image of patient 4