Biomedical subjects

Ingvar Ericsson

Publications and source records attributed to Ingvar Ericsson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Immediate loading of Brånemark System Implants: a comparison between TiUnite and turned implants placed in the anterior mandible.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment outcome of TiUnite- and turned-surfaced Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) implants when applying immediate loading of cross-arch designed fixed partial dentures in the anterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with edentulous mandibles participated in the study. In one half of the jaw, between the exit of the nerve-vessel bundle and the midline, one type of implant was placed and in the remaining half the other type. The implants were loaded the day of surgery via a fixed, temporary supra-construction. Ten days later, the permanent one was screw retained to the implant pillars. RESULTS: The present 18-month clinical trial failed to demonstrate any differences regarding healing and cumulative success rate of an an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) and a turned (turned) one when implants in the anterior mandible were exposed to functional load within 24 hours after installation. CONCLUSION: A high predictability regarding the treatment outcome for immediately loaded Brånemark implants in the anterior mandible was observed. Furthermore, no difference between the traditional turned and the an-oxidized implant surface (TiUnite) could be observed. However, it has to be stressed that all implants (irrespective of surface) were placed in the anterior mandible and also that all the patients demonstrated a high level of oral hygiene.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Provisional implants: a clinical prospective study in 45 patients, from implant placement to delivery of the final bridge.

BACKGROUND: Protocols for submerged healing of dental implants often require the patient to have no teeth until suture removal and to wear a removable prosthesis during the remaining healing period. This may be inconvenient for the patient, and healing may be influenced negatively by the removable prosthesis. PURPOSE: The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to evaluate the use of provisional implants (PIs) to provide patients with a provisional fixed bridge during the healing of permanent implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty female and 25 male patients were consecutively included in the study. The 45 patients were treated for either partial (16 patients) or total (29 patients) edentulism in the maxilla. The permanent implants were placed first; as many PIs as possible were then installed between the permanent implants. After suturing, impressions from which to manufacture provisional bridges (to be cemented to the PIs) were taken. The patients were monitored with clinical and radiographic follow-up from implant placement to delivery of the final prosthesis. RESULTS: Five (2.2%) of the 230 permanent Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) did not integrate. None of the failures could be related to the presence of PIs between the permanent implants. Seven PIs failed during the observation period. In addition, 17 (9%) of the 192 PIs showed mobility at the second-stage surgery although they had supported the provisional bridges without clinical symptoms. Forty-four of 45 patients showed stabile PI bridges at the time of second-stage surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on our experiences we concluded that provisional implants can be successfully used to provide patients with a fixed provisional bridge during the healing of permanent implants.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Early functional loading using Brånemark dental implants.

The present review article discusses the one- and two-stage surgical protocol for dental implant placement as well as the critical amount of micromotion at the bone-implant interface to obtain proper osseointegration. The relevant literature supporting the hypothesis that "splinting of individual implants as soon as possible following installation via a rigid fixed device will most likely decrease the micromotion at the bone-implant interface thus facilitating proper bone healing (osseointegration)" is reported. As a consequence of this approach, the treatment period can be significantly reduced. Finally, the importance of an objective evaluation of the bone quality and initial implant stability is highlighted. The information thus obtained via tools already available will facilitate the decision as to whether to load implants immediately, early, or late, and the term "individual functional loading" is coined.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗