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 12 (1997), No. 1     1. Jan. 1997
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12 (1997), No. 1  (01.01.1997)

Page 65-73


Osseointegration of Rough Acid-Etched Implants: One-Year Follow-up of Placement of 100 Minimatic Implants
Leonardis, De / Garg / Pecora / Andreana
Between January 1992 and October 1992, 100 Minimatic screw implants made of titanium alloy with rough acid-etched surfaces were placed in 63 consecutive partially edentulous patients. At second-stage (uncovering) surgery performed after a 4- to 6-month healing period, none of the implants showed any signs of mobility, peri-implant infection, or bone loss. After an additional healing phase averaging 2 weeks, the patients were restored with fixed prostheses. Patients were reexamined every 3 months for 1 year, with all 63 patients available for evaluation during this period. Periapical radiographs were taken preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and at 6 and 12 months after implantation. There were no signs of peri-implant radiolucencies in any of the implants, and alveolar bone loss was less than 1 mm on average 1 year after implantation. Based on Plaque Index, sulcular bleeding index, pocket probing depth, attachment level, width or keratinized mucosa, and hand-tested mobility, 99 implants were considered successful and 1 (which developed per i-implant infection) was considered a failure. Study results substantiate other reports that implants with a rough surface can yield predictable good results.