The Experts below are selected from a list of 2016 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hideo Matsumura - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of Single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Markus B Blatz, Shingo Kamio, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized Single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of Single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Markus B Blatz, Shingo Kamio, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized Single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P
H. De Bruyn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of speech intelligibility articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour in subjects with Single Tooth Implants fixed Implant prosthetics or conventional removable prostheses
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2012Co-Authors: K. Van Lierde, Paul Corthals, Hilde Browaeys, P. Mussche, H. De Bruyn, E Van KerkhovenAbstract:Summary The purpose of this controlled study was to determine the impact of a Single-Tooth Implant, fixed Implant prosthesis and completely removable dental prosthesis on intelligibility, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour. Additionally, the self-perceived overall satisfaction of the dental replacements and the effect on speech was questioned. Objective (acoustic analysis) as well as subjective assessment techniques (perceptual evaluation) were used. The satisfaction of Single-Tooth Implant group was very high (100%) followed by a satisfaction of 87% for the fixed Implant prosthesis group and 68% for the removable prosthesis group. The results of the phonetic analyses revealed a normal intelligibility and oromyofunctional behaviour in the three groups of dental replacements. Only one type of articulation disorders was observed in the Single-Tooth Implant group, followed by three types of disorders in the removable prosthesis group and six types of disorders in the fixed Implant prosthesis group. In this last group, not only 87% of the subjects showed distortions of one or more consonants but also most consonants of the Dutch language were disturbed in comparison with the Single-Tooth Implant and removable prosthesis users. Special attention must be paid to the fricative /s/ because in more than 50% of all groups, this sound is disturbed.
-
Comparison of speech intelligibility, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour in subjects with Single‐Tooth Implants, fixed Implant prosthetics or conventional removable prostheses
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2012Co-Authors: K. Van Lierde, Paul Corthals, Hilde Browaeys, P. Mussche, E Van Kerkhoven, H. De BruynAbstract:Summary The purpose of this controlled study was to determine the impact of a Single-Tooth Implant, fixed Implant prosthesis and completely removable dental prosthesis on intelligibility, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour. Additionally, the self-perceived overall satisfaction of the dental replacements and the effect on speech was questioned. Objective (acoustic analysis) as well as subjective assessment techniques (perceptual evaluation) were used. The satisfaction of Single-Tooth Implant group was very high (100%) followed by a satisfaction of 87% for the fixed Implant prosthesis group and 68% for the removable prosthesis group. The results of the phonetic analyses revealed a normal intelligibility and oromyofunctional behaviour in the three groups of dental replacements. Only one type of articulation disorders was observed in the Single-Tooth Implant group, followed by three types of disorders in the removable prosthesis group and six types of disorders in the fixed Implant prosthesis group. In this last group, not only 87% of the subjects showed distortions of one or more consonants but also most consonants of the Dutch language were disturbed in comparison with the Single-Tooth Implant and removable prosthesis users. Special attention must be paid to the fricative /s/ because in more than 50% of all groups, this sound is disturbed.
-
Impact of anterior Single‐Tooth Implants on quality of life, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour: a pilot study
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2010Co-Authors: K. Van Lierde, Paul Corthals, Hilde Browaeys, P. Mussche, E. Van Kerckhove, H. De BruynAbstract:Summary The main purpose of this study is to determine the impact (one and a half year after Implantation) of a Single-Tooth Implant on articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour. This information is important for dentists, orthodontists or stomatologists who treat professional speakers. Objective (acoustic analysis) as well as subjective (questionnaire, phonetic inventory, phonetic analysis, oromyofunctional assessment of lip and tongue function, blowing, sucking and swallowing) assessment techniques were used to determine the quality of life, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour. Fourteen subjects who received a Single-Tooth Implant and a control group of nine subjects participated in this study. The mean overall satisfaction of Single-Implant users was 95%. The subjects who received a Single-Tooth Implant were capable of producing all Dutch vowels and consonants. The phonetic analysis revealed a sigmatism in 57% of the cases. Sigmatisms (stridens sigmatism followed by simplex sigmatism) were the most frequently observed phonetic disorders. There was interobserver agreement about normal lip and tongue functions. Moreover, blowing, sucking and swallowing patterns were normal (concordance value 96%). Detailed analyses 1 or 2 years after Implantation of an anterior Single-Tooth Implant revealed normal speech intelligibility and oromyofunctional behaviour. Articulation was characterised by the presence of a persistent phonetic disorder. Further research involving more subjects with an anterior Single-Tooth Implant is needed.
Flemming Isidor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Patient satisfaction and esthetic outcome after immediate placement and provisionalization of Single‐Tooth Implants involving a definitive individual abutment
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Jens Hartlev, Peter Kohberg, Søren Ahlmann, Niels Trolle Andersen, Søren Schou, Flemming IsidorAbstract:Objectives To assess patient satisfaction and esthetic outcome after immediate placement and provisionalization of Single-Tooth Implants involving a definitive individual abutment and a provisional crown followed by later placement of a definitive crown. Materials and methods In private practice, a Single-Tooth Implant was placed immediately after Tooth extraction in the esthetic zone of 54 patients. A definitive individual abutment and a provisional crown were mounted in the same visit. The definitive crown was placed after a mean period of 7 months. After a mean follow-up period of 33 months, the subjective and professional evaluation of the total Implant treatment, peri-Implant soft tissues, and Implant crown were assessed on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). The professional esthetic treatment outcome was also evaluated using pink esthetic score (PES), white esthetic score (WES), and total score of PES/WES. Results The evaluation of total Implant treatment, peri-Implant soft tissues, and Implant crown demonstrated a significantly higher subjective than professional score for all 3 parameters (P
-
clinical and radiographic performance of delayed immediate Single Tooth Implant placement associated with peri Implant bone defects a 2 year prospective controlled randomized follow up report
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2005Co-Authors: Lars Schropp, Lambros Kostopoulos, Ann Wenzel, Flemming IsidorAbstract:: Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the delayed-immediate (Im) and the delayed (De) protocols for placement of Single-Tooth Implants. Material and methods: After allocation to the Im and De groups by random, 46 patients were treated with a Single-Tooth Implant with acid etched surfaces (Osseotite®) in the anterior or pre-molar region of the maxilla or the mandible on average 10 days (Im) or 3 months (De) following Tooth extraction, respectively. Forty-one patients attended a follow-up visit 2 years after Implant placement corresponding to 1½ years of loading of the Implant restorations. Peri-Implant and prosthetic parameters were evaluated clinically and marginal bone levels measured on radiographs. Results: Three Implants were lost, all before mounting of the crown. None of the Implant restorations had failed after 1½ years of function. Probing pocket depths were reduced by up to 1.4 mm on average from the time of loading to the 2-year follow-up and at that time, no significant difference between the Im and De groups was found (4.2 versus 4.1 mm). A statistically significant radiographic marginal bone loss had occurred in the Im group (mean=0.8 mm) as well as in the De group (mean=0.7 mm) in the follow-up period. However, a mean marginal bone level of approx. 1.5 mm in both groups measured from the Implant–abutment junction was found to be acceptable. It was demonstrated that probing pocket depths and marginal bone levels after 1½ years of loading of the Implant-retained crowns were not influenced by the presence of peri-Implant bone defects immediately after Implant placement. Furthermore, no severe prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or porcelain fractures, arose in this study material. Conclusion: High success rates of Single-Tooth Implants after 1½ years of function were achieved using the delayed-immediate and delayed Implant placement techniques.
-
patient experience of and satisfaction with delayed immediate vs delayed Single Tooth Implant placement
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2004Co-Authors: Lars Schropp, Flemming Isidor, Lambros Kostopoulos, Ann WenzelAbstract:Objectives: Recent investigations have focused on patients' subjective assessment of Implant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the patients' experience of surgical and prosthetic procedures, as well as satisfaction with function and aesthetics following Single-Tooth replacements mounted to early vs. delayed placed dental Implants. Material and methods: Forty-six patients were treated with a Single-Tooth Implant in the anterior or premolar region. Twenty-three Implants were placed on average 10 days after Tooth extraction (Im), while 23 Implants were placed approximately 3 months after Tooth extraction (De). Forty-one patients completed a questionnaire regarding the treatment using visual analog scales (VAS) and check boxes 16–18 months after delivery of the restoration. Results: In all, 90% of the respondents rated 88 or higher on the VAS regarding satisfaction with the crown. Satisfaction with the restoration in general and the appearance was significantly greater in the Im group than in the De group (96 vs. 93; P<0.02). Assessment of the Implant surgery was not significantly different between the delayed-immediate and the delayed group. Approximately 25% of the patients experienced unpleasantness in relation to the prosthetic procedures, and in 8 of 11 cases, impression taking was the cause. When evaluating satisfaction with the overall Implant treatment, the VAS scores for the delayed-immediate group were significantly higher than for the delayed group (96 vs. 90; P<0.02). Conclusion: The patients in the present study were highly satisfied with the outcome of the treatment and experienced it to be without significant unpleasantness irrespective of the treatment concept.
Kohei Taguchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fracture resistance of Single Tooth Implant supported zirconia based indirect composite layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2014Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Markus B Blatz, Shingo Kamio, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized Single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P < 0.044) than that in the other groups, which did not significantly differ. Conclusions The fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E) is comparable to that of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) and zirconia-based all-ceramic (ZAC) restorations. Application of Estenia Opaque Primer to zirconia ceramic framework provides superior fracture resistance in Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar crowns.
-
Fracture resistance of Single‐Tooth Implant‐supported zirconia‐based indirect composite‐layered molar restorations
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2013Co-Authors: Kohei Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Ryosuke Fushiki, Markus B Blatz, Shingo Kamio, Hideo MatsumuraAbstract:Objectives This study evaluated the fracture resistance of Single-Tooth Implant-supported zirconia-based indirect composite-layered molar restorations. Material and methods Forty-four titanium abutments (GingiHue Post) were placed on dental Implants (Osseotite Implant). Standardized Single-Tooth cement-retained Implant-supported mandibular molar restorations were fabricated for each of four test groups (n = 11) as follows: porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (PFM), zirconia-based all-ceramic crowns (ZAC), zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns primed with Estenia Opaque Primer for zirconia frameworks (ZIC-E), and zirconia-based indirect composite-layered crowns (ZIC). The crowns were luted with a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem Easymix). Fracture resistance (N) was determined by force application of a perpendicular load to the crowns with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's HSD test were used to assess differences in fracture resistance values (α = 0.05). Results Mean fracture resistances (SD) were 3.09 (0.22) kN, 3.11 (0.34) kN, 2.84 (0.21) kN, and 2.50 (0.36) kN for the PFM, ZAC, ZIC-E, and ZIC groups, respectively. Fracture resistance in the ZIC specimens was significantly lower (P
Ann Wenzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
clinical and radiographic performance of delayed immediate Single Tooth Implant placement associated with peri Implant bone defects a 2 year prospective controlled randomized follow up report
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2005Co-Authors: Lars Schropp, Lambros Kostopoulos, Ann Wenzel, Flemming IsidorAbstract:: Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the delayed-immediate (Im) and the delayed (De) protocols for placement of Single-Tooth Implants. Material and methods: After allocation to the Im and De groups by random, 46 patients were treated with a Single-Tooth Implant with acid etched surfaces (Osseotite®) in the anterior or pre-molar region of the maxilla or the mandible on average 10 days (Im) or 3 months (De) following Tooth extraction, respectively. Forty-one patients attended a follow-up visit 2 years after Implant placement corresponding to 1½ years of loading of the Implant restorations. Peri-Implant and prosthetic parameters were evaluated clinically and marginal bone levels measured on radiographs. Results: Three Implants were lost, all before mounting of the crown. None of the Implant restorations had failed after 1½ years of function. Probing pocket depths were reduced by up to 1.4 mm on average from the time of loading to the 2-year follow-up and at that time, no significant difference between the Im and De groups was found (4.2 versus 4.1 mm). A statistically significant radiographic marginal bone loss had occurred in the Im group (mean=0.8 mm) as well as in the De group (mean=0.7 mm) in the follow-up period. However, a mean marginal bone level of approx. 1.5 mm in both groups measured from the Implant–abutment junction was found to be acceptable. It was demonstrated that probing pocket depths and marginal bone levels after 1½ years of loading of the Implant-retained crowns were not influenced by the presence of peri-Implant bone defects immediately after Implant placement. Furthermore, no severe prosthodontic complications, such as screw loosening or porcelain fractures, arose in this study material. Conclusion: High success rates of Single-Tooth Implants after 1½ years of function were achieved using the delayed-immediate and delayed Implant placement techniques.
-
patient experience of and satisfaction with delayed immediate vs delayed Single Tooth Implant placement
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2004Co-Authors: Lars Schropp, Flemming Isidor, Lambros Kostopoulos, Ann WenzelAbstract:Objectives: Recent investigations have focused on patients' subjective assessment of Implant treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the patients' experience of surgical and prosthetic procedures, as well as satisfaction with function and aesthetics following Single-Tooth replacements mounted to early vs. delayed placed dental Implants. Material and methods: Forty-six patients were treated with a Single-Tooth Implant in the anterior or premolar region. Twenty-three Implants were placed on average 10 days after Tooth extraction (Im), while 23 Implants were placed approximately 3 months after Tooth extraction (De). Forty-one patients completed a questionnaire regarding the treatment using visual analog scales (VAS) and check boxes 16–18 months after delivery of the restoration. Results: In all, 90% of the respondents rated 88 or higher on the VAS regarding satisfaction with the crown. Satisfaction with the restoration in general and the appearance was significantly greater in the Im group than in the De group (96 vs. 93; P<0.02). Assessment of the Implant surgery was not significantly different between the delayed-immediate and the delayed group. Approximately 25% of the patients experienced unpleasantness in relation to the prosthetic procedures, and in 8 of 11 cases, impression taking was the cause. When evaluating satisfaction with the overall Implant treatment, the VAS scores for the delayed-immediate group were significantly higher than for the delayed group (96 vs. 90; P<0.02). Conclusion: The patients in the present study were highly satisfied with the outcome of the treatment and experienced it to be without significant unpleasantness irrespective of the treatment concept.