Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone resorption around two types of external hex implants : preliminary study
![]() |
Lee, Ji-Eun
(Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) Han, Chong-Hyun (Department of Prsthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yongdong Severance Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) |
1 | Adell R, Lekholm U, Rocker B, Branemark P-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416 DOI |
2 | Oh TJ, Yoon JK, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss:Myth or science? J Periodontol 2002; 73:322-33 DOI ScienceOn |
3 | Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Branemark system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:104-11 DOI ScienceOn |
4 | Hansson S. The implant neck: Smooth or provided with retention elements. A biomechanical approach. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:394-405 DOI ScienceOn |
5 | Norton MR. Marginal bone levels at single tooth implants with a conicalfixture design. The influence of surface macro-and microstructure. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:91-9 DOI ScienceOn |
6 | Zechner W, Trinkl N, Watzak G, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Haas R, Watzek G. Radiologic follow-up of peri-implant bone loss around machine-surfaced and rough-surfaced interforaminal implants in the mandible functionally loaded for 3 to 7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:216-21 |
7 | Hansson S, Norton M. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone anchored implants: A biomechanical approach. In:Hansson S (ed). Toward and optimized dental implant and bridge design: a biomechanical approach [thesis]. Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 1997 |
8 | Guo EX. Mechanical properties of cortical and cancellous bone tissue. In:Cowin SC, ed. Bone mechanics handbook. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press; 2001;10:1-23 |
9 | Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson RA. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants. A review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25 PUBMED |
10 | Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52 DOI ScienceOn |
11 | Stanford CM, Schneider GB. Functional behavior of bone around dental implants. Gerodontology 2004;21:71-7 DOI |
12 | Palmer RM, Smith BJ, Palmer PJ, Floyd PD. A prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin Oral lmplants Res 1997;8:173-9 DOI ScienceOn |
13 | Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, Gunsoley J. A multicenter study comparing dual acid-etched and machinedsurfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontology 2001;72:1384-90 DOI |
14 | Shin YK, Han CH, Heo SJ, Kim SJ, Chun HJ. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;20:789-94 |
15 | Karlsson U, Gotfredsen K, Olsson C. Single-tooth replacement by osseointegrated Astra Tech dental implants: a 2- year report. Int J Proshodont 1997;10:318-24 |
16 | Wilke HJ. Claes L. Steinemann S. The influence of various titanium surfaces on the interface shear strength between implants and bone. Advances in Biomaterials 1990;9:309-14 |
17 | Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhace bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:319-29 PUBMED |
18 | Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1 year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8 |
19 | Lee DW, Choi YS, Park KH, Kim CS, Moon IS. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level: a 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:465-70 DOI ScienceOn |
![]() |