scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 0882-2786

International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 

Quintessence Publishing Company
About: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants is an academic journal published by Quintessence Publishing Company. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Implant & Osseointegration. It has an ISSN identifier of 0882-2786. Over the lifetime, 3964 publications have been published receiving 202466 citations. The journal is also known as: JOMI & International journal of oral and maxillofacial implants.


Papers
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: Criteria for the evaluation of dental implant success are proposed and an attempt has been made to standardize the basis for comments on each type of implant.
Abstract: Criteria for the evaluation of dental implant success are proposed These criteria are applied in an assessment of the long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants including the subperiosteal implant, the vitreous carbon implant, the blade-vent implant, the single-crystal sapphire implant, the Tubingen implant, the TCP-implant, the TPS-screw, the ITI hollow-cylinder implant, the IMZ dental implant, the Core-Vent titanium alloy implant, the transosteal mandibular staple bone plate, and the Branemark osseointegrated titanium implant An attempt has been made to standardize the basis for comments on each type of implant

3,448 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The long-term outcome of prostheses and fixtures (implants) in 759 totally edentulous jaws of 700 patients concur with multicenter and earlier results for the osseointegration method.
Abstract: This study reviews the long-term outcome of prostheses and fixtures (implants) in 759 totally edentulous jaws of 700 patients. A total of 4,636 standard fixtures were placed and followed according to the osseointegration method for a maximum of 24 years by the original team at the University of Goteborg. Standardized annual clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted as far as possible. A lifetable approach was applied for statistical analysis. Sufficient numbers of fixtures and prostheses for a detailed statistical analysis were present for observation times up to 15 years. More than 95% of maxillae had continuous prosthesis stability at 5 and 10 years, and at least 92% at 15 years. The figure for mandibles was 99% at all time intervals. Calculated from the time of fixture placement, the estimated survival rates for individual fixtures in the maxilla were 84%, 89%, and 92% at 5 years; 81% and 82% at 10 years; and 78% at 15 years. In the mandible they were 91%, 98%, and 99% at 5 years; 89% and 98% at 10 years; and 86% at 15 years. (The different percentages at 5 and 10 years refer to results for different routine groups of fixtures with 5 to 10, 10 to 15, and 1 to 5 years of observation time, respectively.) The results of this study concur with multicenter and earlier results for the osseointegration method.

1,927 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Preliminary clinical evidence is presented of the beneficial effect of the use of plasma rich in growth factors of autologous origin, which can introduce several advantages, including the enhancement and acceleration of bone regeneration and more rapid and predictable soft tissue healing.
Abstract: This article presents preliminary clinical evidence of the beneficial effect of the use of plasma rich in growth factors of autologous origin. The plasma is obtained from the individual patient by plasmapheresis. The macroscopic and microscopic results obtained with bone regeneration using this technique, which uses no membrane or barrier, can be observed. The incorporation of these concepts can introduce several advantages, including the enhancement and acceleration of bone regeneration and more rapid and predictable soft tissue healing.

967 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present anatomic and surgical considerations for implant placement in the anterior maxilla, including mesiodistal, apicocoronal, and orofacial dimensions, defining "comfort" and "danger" zones for proper implant position.
Abstract: The placement of dental implants in the anterior maxilla is a challenge for clinicians because of patients' exacting esthetic demands and difficult pre-existing anatomy. This article presents anatomic and surgical considerations for these demanding indications for implant therapy. First, potential causes of esthetic implant failures are reviewed, discussing anatomic factors such as horizontal or vertical bone deficiencies and iatrogenic factors such as improper implant selection or the malpositioning of dental implants for an esthetic implant restoration. Furthermore, aspects of preoperative analysis are described in various clinical situations, followed by recommendations for the surgical procedures in single-tooth gaps and in extended edentulous spaces with multiple missing teeth. An ideal implant position in all 3 dimensions is required. These mesiodistal, apicocoronal, and orofacial dimensions are well described, defining "comfort" and "danger" zones for proper implant position in the anterior maxilla. During surgery, the emphasis is on proper implant selection to avoid oversized implants, careful and low-trauma soft tissue handling, and implant placement in a proper position using either a periodontal probe or a prefabricated surgical guide. If missing, the facial bone wall is augmented using a proper surgical technique, such as guided bone regeneration with barrier membranes and appropriate bone grafts and/or bone substitutes. Finally, precise wound closure using a submerged or a semi-submerged healing modality is recommended. Following a healing period of between 6 and 12 weeks, a reopening procedure is recommended with a punch technique to initiate the restorative phase of therapy.

814 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure has been well documented, and the long-term clinical success/survival (> 5 years) of implants placed, regardless of graft material(s) used, compares favorably to implants placed conventionally, with no grafting procedure.
Abstract: Purpose A variety of techniques and materials have been used to establish the structural base of osseous tissue for supporting dental implants. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the most successful technique(s) to provide the necessary alveolar bone to place a dental implant and support long-term survival. Methods A systematic online review of a main database and manual search of relevant articles from refereed journals were performed between 1980 and 2005. Updates and additions were made from September 2004 to May 2005. The hard tissue augmentation techniques were separated into 2 anatomic sites, the maxillary sinus and alveolar ridge. Within the alveolar ridge augmentation technique, different surgical approaches were identified and categorized, including guided bone regeneration (GBR), onlay/veneer grafting (OVG), combinations of onlay, veneer, interpositional inlay grafting (COG), distraction osteogenesis (DO), ridge splitting (RS), free and vascularized autografts for discontinuity defects (DD), mandibular interpositional grafting (MI), and socket preservation (SP). All identified articles were evaluated and screened by 2 independent reviewers to meet strict inclusion criteria. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were further evaluated for data extraction. The initial search identified a total of 526 articles from the electronic database and manual search. Of these, 335 articles met the inclusion criteria after a review of the titles and abstracts. From the 335 articles, further review of the full text of the articles produced 90 articles that provided sufficient data for extraction and analysis. Results For the maxillary sinus grafting (SG) technique, the results showed a total of 5,128 implants placed, with follow-up times ranging from 12 to 102 months. Implant survival was 92% for implants placed into autogenous and autogenous/composite grafts, 93.3% for implants placed into allogeneic/nonautogenous composite grafts, 81% for implants placed into alloplast and alloplast/xenograft materials, and 95.6% for implants placed into xenograft materials alone. For alveolar ridge augmentation, a total of 2,620 implants were placed, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 74 months. The implant survival rate was 95.5% for GBR, 90.4% for OVG, 94.7% for DO, and 83.8% for COG. Other techniques, such as DD, RS, SP, and MI, were difficult to analyze because of the small sample size and data heterogeneity within and across studies. Conclusions The maxillary sinus augmentation procedure has been well documented, and the long-term clinical success/survival (> 5 years) of implants placed, regardless of graft material(s) used, compares favorably to implants placed conventionally, with no grafting procedure, as reported in other systematic reviews. Alveolar ridge augmentation techniques do not have detailed documentation or long-term follow-up studies, with the exception of GBR. However, studies that met the inclusion criteria seemed to be comparable and yielded favorable results in supporting dental implants. The alveolar ridge augmentation procedures may be more technique- and operator-experience-sensitive, and implant survival may be a function of residual bone supporting the dental implant rather than grafted bone. More in-depth, long-term, multicenter studies are required to provide further insight into augmentation procedures to support dental implant survival.

707 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202359
2022126
202132
2020130
2019161
2018139