We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3     15. May 2003
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 3  (15.05.2003)

Page 424-432


Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of 2-Stage IMZ Implants Placed in a Single-Stage Procedure: 2-year Results of a Prospective Comparative Study
Heydenrijk, Kees / Raghoebar, Gerry M. / Meijer, Henny J. A. / Stegenga, Boudewijn
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a 2-stage implant system in a single-stage procedure and to study the impact of the microgap between the implant and the abutment.
Materials and Methods: Sixty edentulous patients (Cawood class V or VI) participated in this study. After randomization, 20 patients received 2 IMZ implants placed in a single-stage procedure, 20 patients received 2 IMZ implants placed in the traditional 2-stage procedure, and 20 patients were treated with 2 ITI implants (single-stage procedure). The implants were placed in the canine area of the mandible. After 3 months, mandibular overdentures were fabricated, supported by a bar-and-clip attachment. A standardized clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed immediately after prosthesis placement and after 12 and 24 months.
Results: One IMZ implant of the 1-stage group and 1 IMZ implant of the 2-stage group were lost after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Apart from several significant but clinically irrelevant differences, the 3 groups did not appear to differ markedly with regard to clinical parameters during the evaluation period. The mean bone loss within the first 2 years of functioning (1.1 mm IMZ 1-stage, 0.8 mm IMZ 2-stage, 1.2 mm ITI) was comparable for the 3 groups. Discussion and
Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that dental implants designed for a submerged implantation procedure can also be used in a single-stage procedure and may be as predictable as when the same implants used in a 2-stage procedure or as 1-stage implants. Placement of the microgap at the crestal level in 2-stage implants did not appear to have an adverse effect on the amount of peri-implant bone loss at 2 years in this study population.