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 19 (2004), No. 5     15. Sep. 2004
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19 (2004), No. 5  (15.09.2004)

Page 710-715


Clinical Analysis of Wide-Diameter Frialit-2 Implants
Krennmair, Gerald / Waldenberger, Othmar
Purpose: To evaluate wide-diameter (ie, 5.5-mm-wide) Frialit-2 implants used for several forms of prosthetic rehabilitation.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 121 wide implants (74 maxillary, 47 mandibular) were placed in 114 patients (61 female, 53 male, mean age 37.2 ± 14.9 years). Thirty-six single-tooth restorations, 63 fixed partial dentures (68 implants), 6 removable overdentures (7 implants), and 3 fixed complete dentures (8 implants) were placed. Eighty-seven were placed in the molar regions. The follow-up period for the implants was 12 to 114 months (mean 41.8 ± 18.5 months). Peri-implant bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index values, Bleeding Index values, and Periotest values were evaluated.
Results: Overall, 2 maxillary implants were lost, for a cumulative survival rate of 98.3% (97.3% in the maxilla; 100% in the mandible). Mean peri-implant pocket depth (3.4 ± 1.1 mm), bone resorption (1.4 ± 1.2 mm), Periotest values (-4.3 ± 3.1) as well as the Plaque Index and Bleeding Index (grades of 0 in 80% of cases) indicated acceptable results.
Discussion: The high survival rate may be attributed to avoidance of the use of short wide-diameter implants, and the primary intention to place wide-diameter implants. Preference of the molar region was a consequence of the peri-implant bone situation in the premolar region, which was frequently inadequate for a 5.5-mm implant.
Conclusions: The use of wide-diameter implants can be a viable treatment option and may provide benefits in posterior regions for long-term maintenance of various implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations. Some anatomic and prosthodontic limitations for the use of wide implants were identified.