Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L I Linkow

Publications and source records attributed to L I Linkow.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Retrieval analyses of a blade implant after 231 months of clinical function.

A blade implant that was retrieved in 1990 after 231 months of clinical function (since 1971) was analyzed with respect to clinical, histological, and biomechanical characteristics. The implant clinical records demonstrated no abnormalities or pathological lesions over the tenure of treatment. The bone to implant interface showed a mixture of interfacial tissue components and conditions with adequate direct bone contact (46.4 to 82.3 percent) for classification as osseointegrated. The abutment fracture leading to removal was characterized as a cyclic fatigue mechanism and the distribution of tissue components along the interface could not be correlated with specific biomechanical loading directions. This report considers the clinical and biomechanical records as they relate to the detailed histological investigation.

Blade Implantation↗
PubMed1990

Factors influencing long-term implant success.

An implant quotient (IQ) has been proposed to help clinicians identify the 24 factors that can affect the potential long-term success of endosseous dental implants. Maximizing the positive factors and minimizing the negative factors will result in relatively high values for the theoretical IQ. Long-term success is directly proportional to the resultant value of the IQ. The greater the value of the IQ, the better the possibility for long-term success. The length of healing time and the necessity for submerged healing are indirectly proportional to the resultant value of the IQ. The greater the value of the IQ, the shorter the healing time before loading an endosseous implant may be. The greater the value of the IQ, the less necessary it becomes to submerge the healing implant.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗
PubMed1977

Implants for fixed and removable prostheses.

For those individuals whose oral anatomy contraindicates the use of endosteal implants, there still remains a viable alternative to conventional removable dentures. Both maxillary and mandibular implant dentures of a subperiosteal design will provide a stable implant and a retentive restorative prosthesis. The patient is free from the oral gymnastics required to manipulate such appliances and in the maxilla the dentist is able to eliminate all palatal coverage without compromising the retention of the bridge. The lower subperiosteal implant and the pterygoid extension implant discussed both obtain their stability from accurate fit of the implant substructure to the bone. The implant first becomes more retentive when the periosteum tenaciously reattaches itself to the bone and in turn secures the implant in position (Fig. 13). The restorative procedures follow sound prosthetic prinicples with particular attention on avoiding any impingement of the underlying tissue areas. Implant dentures have truly provided patients a means of exploring alternative treatment modalities other than conventional removable dentures. Literally thousands of patients today are living testimony to the accomplishments of oral implantology when pursued as an exacting science prescribed by colleagues experienced in this revolutionary dental discipline.

Dental Implantation↗