{"id":{"repo_id":"aachen","oai_identifier":"oai:publications.rwth-aachen.de:62312"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/aachen/oai:publications.rwth-aachen.de:62312","repository":{"repo_id":"aachen","name":"RWTH Aachen University","base_url":"https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/oai2d"},"display":{"title":"Fünfjährige Ergebnisse der verzögerten Sofortbelastung von fünf Implantaten im zahnlosen Unterkiefer : eine retrospektive klinische Studie","abstract":"First public study reports of oral implant insertion were dated in the early 20th century. Besides the research for the best fitted material for the oral implants, great affords were done to achieve a periodontal like connection. In 1969 Brånemark et al report the outcome of their developed titanium implant. The success of this implant is attributed to a direct connection of bone with the implant (osseointegration). They recommend the submerged healing, three to four months in the lower and four to six months in the upper jaw before loading. Within this study ten edentulous patients were treated with each five machined-surface Brånemark implants in the lower jaw. After a healing period of up to 20 days, the implant supported prosthesis was fixed. After a follow up of five years, the overall long-term treatment outcome success was at 80%. The implants that did not osseointegrate have been removed and replaced ad modum Brånemark. The marginal bone levels were stable, after the first year of loading, the observed bone loss was within the suggested 0,2mm/year. Due to the high implant loss, the success criteria proposed by Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled by this study. The outcome of an oral rehabilitation with implants is influenced by several variables, which can be separated in three groups. The first group is determined by the patient and its given conditions like the different amount and quality of bone, which can barely be manipulated. The relationship between bone density, initial stability, and successful osseointegration has been generally accepted by clinicians and confirmed. Smoking and general diseases may have an influence for the outcome of the therapy, but at the moment cannot be properly determined, whereas habits like bruxism and clenching cause overwhelming stress on the early implant-bone contact. Poor oral hygiene is associated with increased marginal bone loss and thus might cause implant failures. Concerning the different materials, variables as the implant length, the surface, the direction of implant loading and the insertion torque are of great interest. At the beginning, there were many clinicians who recommended the use of long implants to achieve a strong bicortical anchorage with a high primary stability. Due to the results of present studies, the use of shorter implants is favoured. It could often be demonstrated, that there is a significant difference in removal torque values between machined implants an implants with rough surfaces, so that there is a high agreement in the recommended use of rough surface implants. The implants should be loaded axially to avoid destructive forces. There are also controversial opinions about the insertion torque. On the one hand, high torque values are strived for to achieve a high primary mechanical stability, on the other hand might these high torque values provoke necrosis and minifractures which endanger the implant healing. The operative and prostodontic procedure is similar to the unloaded healing except the healing time, which is of high importance for the manufacturing of the supraconstruction. New tryouts by using computertomographs allow the planning and manufacturing before inserting the implants and may avoid any complications. Although in this study machined implants were used with a reduced healing time of about 20 days and the early loading of the implants by a fixed prothesis in the lower jaw, there could be demonstrated an implant survival rate of 80%. On account of the high implant failures the success criteria proposed of Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled. The main reason for this high failure rates might probably the use of machined surface implants. At the time of implantation, there where no rough surface implants by Nobel Biocare available, which show better results in many following studies. Possible other reasons might be the loading within the first three weeks after insertion, reduced insertion torque values, the existence of occlusal contacts on the cantilevers, which might cause an overwhelming load on the distal implants. Additionally distal implants show higher peak axial forces and bending moments when antagonizing a removal denture. The sample size was small, but these results suggest that new studies need to be developed for al better understanding of the studied variables.","abstract_html":"First public study reports of oral implant insertion were dated in the early 20th century. Besides the research for the best fitted material for the oral implants, great affords were done to achieve a periodontal like connection. In 1969 Brånemark et al report the outcome of their developed titanium implant. The success of this implant is attributed to a direct connection of bone with the implant (osseointegration). They recommend the submerged healing, three to four months in the lower and four to six months in the upper jaw before loading. Within this study ten edentulous patients were treated with each five machined-surface Brånemark implants in the lower jaw. After a healing period of up to 20 days, the implant supported prosthesis was fixed. After a follow up of five years, the overall long-term treatment outcome success was at 80%. The implants that did not osseointegrate have been removed and replaced ad modum Brånemark. The marginal bone levels were stable, after the first year of loading, the observed bone loss was within the suggested 0,2mm/year. Due to the high implant loss, the success criteria proposed by Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled by this study. The outcome of an oral rehabilitation with implants is influenced by several variables, which can be separated in three groups. The first group is determined by the patient and its given conditions like the different amount and quality of bone, which can barely be manipulated. The relationship between bone density, initial stability, and successful osseointegration has been generally accepted by clinicians and confirmed. Smoking and general diseases may have an influence for the outcome of the therapy, but at the moment cannot be properly determined, whereas habits like bruxism and clenching cause overwhelming stress on the early implant-bone contact. Poor oral hygiene is associated with increased marginal bone loss and thus might cause implant failures. Concerning the different materials, variables as the implant length, the surface, the direction of implant loading and the insertion torque are of great interest. At the beginning, there were many clinicians who recommended the use of long implants to achieve a strong bicortical anchorage with a high primary stability. Due to the results of present studies, the use of shorter implants is favoured. It could often be demonstrated, that there is a significant difference in removal torque values between machined implants an implants with rough surfaces, so that there is a high agreement in the recommended use of rough surface implants. The implants should be loaded axially to avoid destructive forces. There are also controversial opinions about the insertion torque. On the one hand, high torque values are strived for to achieve a high primary mechanical stability, on the other hand might these high torque values provoke necrosis and minifractures which endanger the implant healing. The operative and prostodontic procedure is similar to the unloaded healing except the healing time, which is of high importance for the manufacturing of the supraconstruction. New tryouts by using computertomographs allow the planning and manufacturing before inserting the implants and may avoid any complications. Although in this study machined implants were used with a reduced healing time of about 20 days and the early loading of the implants by a fixed prothesis in the lower jaw, there could be demonstrated an implant survival rate of 80%. On account of the high implant failures the success criteria proposed of Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled. The main reason for this high failure rates might probably the use of machined surface implants. At the time of implantation, there where no rough surface implants by Nobel Biocare available, which show better results in many following studies. Possible other reasons might be the loading within the first three weeks after insertion, reduced insertion torque values, the existence of occlusal contacts on the cantilevers, which might cause an overwhelming load on the distal implants. Additionally distal implants show higher peak axial forces and bending moments when antagonizing a removal denture. The sample size was small, but these results suggest that new studies need to be developed for al better understanding of the studied variables.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Querling, Christopher"],"institution":"Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Yildirim, Murat"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2006,"date_issued":"2006","date_published":"2006","updated_at":"2026-07-30T19:43:28Z","subjects":["info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/610","Medizin","Zahnprothetik","Brücke","Frühbelastung","Implantat getragen","Sofortbelastung","Einheilung","Belastung","early loading","implant supported","immediate loading","healing"],"languages":["ger"],"rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/search?p=id:%22RWTH-CONV-123886%22"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/search?p=id:%22RWTH-CONV-123886%22","href":"https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/search?p=id:%22RWTH-CONV-123886%22","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/62312","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Yildirim, Murat"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Querling, Christopher"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:coverage","label":"Dc Coverage","values":["DE"]},{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2006"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University"]},{"key":"dc:relation","label":"Dc Relation","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:de:hbz:82-opus-17075"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis","info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/610","Medizin","Zahnprothetik","Brücke","Frühbelastung","Implantat getragen","Sofortbelastung","Einheilung","Belastung","early loading","implant supported","immediate loading","healing"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["ger"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/62312","https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/search?p=id:%22RWTH-CONV-123886%22"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["First public study reports of oral implant insertion were dated in the early 20th century. Besides the research for the best fitted material for the oral implants, great affords were done to achieve a periodontal like connection. In 1969 Brånemark et al report the outcome of their developed titanium implant. The success of this implant is attributed to a direct connection of bone with the implant (osseointegration). They recommend the submerged healing, three to four months in the lower and four to six months in the upper jaw before loading. Within this study ten edentulous patients were treated with each five machined-surface Brånemark implants in the lower jaw. After a healing period of up to 20 days, the implant supported prosthesis was fixed. After a follow up of five years, the overall long-term treatment outcome success was at 80%. The implants that did not osseointegrate have been removed and replaced ad modum Brånemark. The marginal bone levels were stable, after the first year of loading, the observed bone loss was within the suggested 0,2mm/year. Due to the high implant loss, the success criteria proposed by Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled by this study. The outcome of an oral rehabilitation with implants is influenced by several variables, which can be separated in three groups. The first group is determined by the patient and its given conditions like the different amount and quality of bone, which can barely be manipulated. The relationship between bone density, initial stability, and successful osseointegration has been generally accepted by clinicians and confirmed. Smoking and general diseases may have an influence for the outcome of the therapy, but at the moment cannot be properly determined, whereas habits like bruxism and clenching cause overwhelming stress on the early implant-bone contact. Poor oral hygiene is associated with increased marginal bone loss and thus might cause implant failures. Concerning the different materials, variables as the implant length, the surface, the direction of implant loading and the insertion torque are of great interest. At the beginning, there were many clinicians who recommended the use of long implants to achieve a strong bicortical anchorage with a high primary stability. Due to the results of present studies, the use of shorter implants is favoured. It could often be demonstrated, that there is a significant difference in removal torque values between machined implants an implants with rough surfaces, so that there is a high agreement in the recommended use of rough surface implants. The implants should be loaded axially to avoid destructive forces. There are also controversial opinions about the insertion torque. On the one hand, high torque values are strived for to achieve a high primary mechanical stability, on the other hand might these high torque values provoke necrosis and minifractures which endanger the implant healing. The operative and prostodontic procedure is similar to the unloaded healing except the healing time, which is of high importance for the manufacturing of the supraconstruction. New tryouts by using computertomographs allow the planning and manufacturing before inserting the implants and may avoid any complications. Although in this study machined implants were used with a reduced healing time of about 20 days and the early loading of the implants by a fixed prothesis in the lower jaw, there could be demonstrated an implant survival rate of 80%. On account of the high implant failures the success criteria proposed of Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled. The main reason for this high failure rates might probably the use of machined surface implants. At the time of implantation, there where no rough surface implants by Nobel Biocare available, which show better results in many following studies. Possible other reasons might be the loading within the first three weeks after insertion, reduced insertion torque values, the existence of occlusal contacts on the cantilevers, which might cause an overwhelming load on the distal implants. Additionally distal implants show higher peak axial forces and bending moments when antagonizing a removal denture. The sample size was small, but these results suggest that new studies need to be developed for al better understanding of the studied variables."]},{"key":"dc:source","label":"Dc Source","values":["Aachen : Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University 85 S. : Ill., graph. Darst. (2006). = Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2006"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Fünfjährige Ergebnisse der verzögerten Sofortbelastung von fünf Implantaten im zahnlosen Unterkiefer : eine retrospektive klinische Studie"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Yildirim, Murat"],"dc:coverage":["DE"],"dc:creator":["Querling, Christopher"],"dc:date":["2006"],"dc:description":["First public study reports of oral implant insertion were dated in the early 20th century. Besides the research for the best fitted material for the oral implants, great affords were done to achieve a periodontal like connection. In 1969 Brånemark et al report the outcome of their developed titanium implant. The success of this implant is attributed to a direct connection of bone with the implant (osseointegration). They recommend the submerged healing, three to four months in the lower and four to six months in the upper jaw before loading. Within this study ten edentulous patients were treated with each five machined-surface Brånemark implants in the lower jaw. After a healing period of up to 20 days, the implant supported prosthesis was fixed. After a follow up of five years, the overall long-term treatment outcome success was at 80%. The implants that did not osseointegrate have been removed and replaced ad modum Brånemark. The marginal bone levels were stable, after the first year of loading, the observed bone loss was within the suggested 0,2mm/year. Due to the high implant loss, the success criteria proposed by Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled by this study. The outcome of an oral rehabilitation with implants is influenced by several variables, which can be separated in three groups. The first group is determined by the patient and its given conditions like the different amount and quality of bone, which can barely be manipulated. The relationship between bone density, initial stability, and successful osseointegration has been generally accepted by clinicians and confirmed. Smoking and general diseases may have an influence for the outcome of the therapy, but at the moment cannot be properly determined, whereas habits like bruxism and clenching cause overwhelming stress on the early implant-bone contact. Poor oral hygiene is associated with increased marginal bone loss and thus might cause implant failures. Concerning the different materials, variables as the implant length, the surface, the direction of implant loading and the insertion torque are of great interest. At the beginning, there were many clinicians who recommended the use of long implants to achieve a strong bicortical anchorage with a high primary stability. Due to the results of present studies, the use of shorter implants is favoured. It could often be demonstrated, that there is a significant difference in removal torque values between machined implants an implants with rough surfaces, so that there is a high agreement in the recommended use of rough surface implants. The implants should be loaded axially to avoid destructive forces. There are also controversial opinions about the insertion torque. On the one hand, high torque values are strived for to achieve a high primary mechanical stability, on the other hand might these high torque values provoke necrosis and minifractures which endanger the implant healing. The operative and prostodontic procedure is similar to the unloaded healing except the healing time, which is of high importance for the manufacturing of the supraconstruction. New tryouts by using computertomographs allow the planning and manufacturing before inserting the implants and may avoid any complications. Although in this study machined implants were used with a reduced healing time of about 20 days and the early loading of the implants by a fixed prothesis in the lower jaw, there could be demonstrated an implant survival rate of 80%. On account of the high implant failures the success criteria proposed of Albrektsson et al were not fulfilled. The main reason for this high failure rates might probably the use of machined surface implants. At the time of implantation, there where no rough surface implants by Nobel Biocare available, which show better results in many following studies. Possible other reasons might be the loading within the first three weeks after insertion, reduced insertion torque values, the existence of occlusal contacts on the cantilevers, which might cause an overwhelming load on the distal implants. Additionally distal implants show higher peak axial forces and bending moments when antagonizing a removal denture. The sample size was small, but these results suggest that new studies need to be developed for al better understanding of the studied variables."],"dc:identifier":["https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/62312","https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/search?p=id:%22RWTH-CONV-123886%22"],"dc:language":["ger"],"dc:publisher":["Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University"],"dc:relation":["info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:de:hbz:82-opus-17075"],"dc:rights":["info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"],"dc:source":["Aachen : Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University 85 S. : Ill., graph. Darst. (2006). = Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2006"],"dc:subject":["info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/610","Medizin","Zahnprothetik","Brücke","Frühbelastung","Implantat getragen","Sofortbelastung","Einheilung","Belastung","early loading","implant supported","immediate loading","healing"],"dc:title":["Fünfjährige Ergebnisse der verzögerten Sofortbelastung von fünf Implantaten im zahnlosen Unterkiefer : eine retrospektive klinische Studie"],"dc:type":["info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis","info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-30T19:43:28Z"}