hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Two-year outcome with Nobel Direct implants: a retrospective radiographic and microbiologic study in 10 patients.
University of Ghent, Belgium.
University of Ghent, Belgium.
University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland, and the University of Washington, Seattle WA, USA.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3620-5978
Örebro University.
Show others and affiliations
2009 (English)In: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, ISSN 1523-0899, E-ISSN 1708-8208, Vol. 11, no 3, p. 183-193Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION: The Nobel Direct implant (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) was developed to minimize marginal bone resorption and to result in "soft tissue integration" for an optimized aesthetic outcome. However, conflicting results have been presented in the literature. The aim of this present study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic outcomes of Nobel Direct implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten partially edentulous subjects without evidence of active periodontitis (mean age 55 years) received 12 Nobel Direct implants. Implants were loaded with single crowns after a healing period of 3 to 6 months. Treatment outcomes were assessed at month 24. Routine clinical assessments, intraoral radiographs, and microbiologic samplings were made. Histologic analysis of one failing implant and chemical spectroscopy around three unused implants was performed. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the evaluation of bone loss; otherwise, descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS: Implants were functionally loaded after 3 to 6 months. At 2 years, the mean bone loss of remaining implants was 2.0 mm (SD +/- 1.1 mm; range: 0.0-3.4 mm). Three out of 12 implants with an early mean bone loss >3 mm were lost. The surviving implants showed increasing bone loss between 6 and 24 months (p = .028). Only 3 out of the 12 implants were considered successful and showed bone loss of <1.7 mm after 2 years. High rates of pathogens, including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium spp., Porphyromonas gingivalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Tanerella forsythia, were found. Chemical spectroscopy revealed, despite the normal signals from Ti, O, and C, also peaks of P, F, S, N, and Ca. A normal histologic image of osseointegration was observed in the apical part of the retrieved implant.

CONCLUSION: Radiographic evidence and 25% implant failures are indications of a low success rate. High counts and prevalence of significant pathogens were found at surviving implants. Although extensive bone loss had occurred in the coronal part, the apical portion of the implant showed some bone to implant integration.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 11, no 3, p. 183-193
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-12222DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00112.xISI: 000268924400003PubMedID: 18783421OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-12222DiVA, id: diva2:728419
Available from: 2014-06-24 Created: 2014-06-24 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Persson, G. Rutger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Persson, G. Rutger
In the same journal
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 117 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf