Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal

Go directly to the nagivation.
Go directly to the content.

Navigation/Search

Selected Publication:

SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb

Steyer, E; Theisen, K; Hulla, H; Maheen, CU; Sokolowski, A; Lorenzoni, M.
Eleven- to fifteen-year outcome for two-piece implants with an internal tube-in-tube connection: a cross-sectional analysis of 245 implants
ORAL MAXILLOFAC SURG. 2024; Doi: 10.1007/s10006-024-01215-4
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

Leading authors Med Uni Graz: Steyer Elisabeth; Theisen Kerstin
Co-authors Med Uni Graz: Hulla Helfried; Lorenzoni Martin; Sokolowski Alwin
Altmetrics:
Dimensions Citations:
Plum Analytics:
Scite (citation analytics):
Abstract:: PurposeThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of a two-piece implant system with a tube-in-tube internal connection after up to 15 years of clinical use.Material and methodsA retrospective follow-up examination of patients treated with internal tube-in-tube implants between 2003 and 2006 was conducted. The implant survival rates, peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque index, probing depth), and technical complications were determined.ResultsIn total, 312 dental implants were placed in 152 patients. Of the original 152 patients enrolled, 245 implants in 112 patients were available for a follow-up evaluation after 11 to 15 years (mean observation time, 12.9 +/- 1.1 years). The overall implant survival rate was 93.9%. Outcomes for MBL (1.49 +/- 1.23 mm), PI (24.3 +/- 22.2%), BOP (18.3 +/- 28.7%), and PD (2.74 +/- 1.21 mm) were observed. Selected parameters (time after implant surgery, smoking habits, bone augmentation (GBR)) showed an influence on MBL and PD.ConclusionsThe internal tube-in-tube implant system showed favorable long-term results. The correlation of MBL and PD with the patient-specific factor smoking habit is in accordance with other studies.Clinical relevanceCamlog Root-Line implants with a tube-in-tube implant-abutment connection and a 1.6-mm polished neck configuration have demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes in daily clinical practice. However, it is important to note that these implants are no longer available on the market.
Find related publications in this database (Keywords): Dental implant; Implant survival rate; Long term; Maintenance; Marginal bone loss