These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative analysis study of 702 dental implants subjected to immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading to traditional healing periods with a follow-up of up to 24 months.
    Author: Degidi M, Piattelli A.
    Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(1):99-107. PubMed ID: 15747680.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate immediate functionally loaded (IFL) and immediate nonfunctionally loaded (INFL) implants for various indications compared to a control group with a conventional healing period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-three patients took part in the study. A total of 702 XiVE implants (Dentsply/Friadent, Mannheim, Germany) were placed: 253 IFL implants, 135 INFL implants, and 314 controls. RESULTS: In each of the 3 groups, 2 implants failed. For all the other implants involved, from a clinical and radiographic point of view, osseointegration was successful. DISCUSSION: As long as the prerequisites are fulfilled, immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading are predictable techniques, not only in completely edentulous patients but also in partially edentulous patients. CONCLUSION: Immediate functional loading and immediate nonfunctional loading appear to be techniques that can provide satisfactory implant success rates in selected cases.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]