4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Re-osseointegration on previously contaminated surfaces: a systematic review

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 216-227

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01786.x

关键词

animal studies; healing; peri-implantitis; re-osseointegration; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this review was to search the literature for the existing evidence of re-osseointegration after treatment of peri-implantitis at contaminated implant surfaces. Material and Methods A search of PubMed as well as additional hand search of articles were conducted. Publications and articles accepted for publication up to November 2008 were included. Results A total of 25 animal studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Access surgery with closed healing has been observed to positively influence the rate of re-osseointegration when compared with non-surgical decontamination of the implant surface with open healing. Open debridement including surface decontamination may result in re-osseointegration and this integration was more pronounced on rougher than on smooth implant surfaces. The adjunctive use of regenerative procedures resulted in varying amounts of re-osseointegration. Conclusions Re-osseointegration is possible to obtain on a previously contaminated implant surface and can occur in experimentally induced peri-implantitis defects following therapy. The amount of re-osseointegration, varied considerably within and between studies. Implant surface characteristics may influence the degree of re-osseointegration. Surface decontamination alone can not achieve substantial re-osseointegration on a previously contaminated implant surface. No method predictably accomplished complete resolution of the peri-implant defect. To cite this article:Renvert S, Polyzois I, Maguire R. Re-osseointegration on previously contaminated surfaces: a systematic review.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20 (Suppl. 4), 2009; 216-227.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01786.x.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据