ライフサイエンスコーパス: abutment

1 dodontically treated and fiber post-restored abutment.

2 microgap (interface) between the implant and abutment.

3 nd 14 with a screw-retained internal hexagon abutment.

4 cs of the connection between the fixture and abutment.

5 sinus, and lack of stable teeth to serve as abutments.

6 tation between implants and their respective abutments.

7 ne) and 3 weeks after insertion of the final abutments.

8 fter loading without removal of the original abutments.

9 -taper connection that connected to standard abutments.

10 ernal connection that connected to multibase abutments.

11 ngual implant position; 2) platform-switched abutments; 3) flapless approach; 4) bone grafts to fill

12 nclusion criteria, including placement of an abutment and provisional restoration within 63 days of s

13 the distance between the top of the implant/abutment and the most coronal bone-to-implant contact (D

14 terial leakage through the interface between abutments and dental implants of external hexagon (EH) a

15 As a major difference, however, abutments and implants of types A, B, and C were laser-w

16 ents, as opposed to types D, E, and F, where abutments and implants were held together by abutment sc

17 igatures were next placed around the healing-abutments and plaque control measures were abandoned.

18 Permanent standard abutments and temporary restorations were immediately fi

19 taper connections that connected to standard abutments and the same abutments with a 0.5-mm groove mo

20 aps and cavities between the implant and the abutment, and these hollow spaces can act as a trap for

21 Impression copings were attached to the abutments, and the modified denture was used for a pick-

22 terial penetration of screw-retained implant-abutment assemblies.

23 rom the inside to the outside of the implant-abutment assembly in three different connection types.

24 e hermeticity of the cement-retained implant-abutment assembly, the very low permeability to bacteria

25 nts, a second stage surgery and transmucosal abutment attachment was performed at week 12.

26 ng to connection design and treatment of the abutment base: 1) no treatment (control); 2) DLC film de

27 fit of the gold cylinders to the prosthetic abutments (baseline).

28 of argon could be used to disinfect implant abutments before insertion to minimize future peri-impla

29 the amount of residual coronal tissues after abutment buildup and final preparation: A) >50% of coron

30 d by possible movements between implants and abutments, but not by the size of the microgap (interfac

31 p B using an individualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a

32 f the central implant to support the central abutment caused major increases in nerve pressure.

33 f internal surfaces; and 3) with the implant-abutment components again assembled as units to measure

34 under three conditions: 1) with the implant-abutment components assembled as units to investigate fo

35 sible lack of the central fixture in a three-abutment configuration, and against different levels of

36 ) 1 mm above the bone crest level and having abutments connected at the time of first-stage surgery.

37 plants were placed at the alveolar crest and abutments connected either at initial surgery (non-subme

38 ss, histomorphometrically, (1) the timing of abutment connection and (2) the influence of a microgap.

39 arginal bone level of 1.20 mm (SD+/-0.94) at abutment connection and 1.30 mm (SD+/-0.87) at follow-up

40 standardized periapical radiographs taken at abutment connection and an average follow-up of 3.9 year

41 ap of dental implants with different fixture-abutment connection characteristics.

42 acement for non-submerged implants and after abutment connection for submerged implants.

43 nt in nonsubmerged implants or 1 month after abutment connection in submerged implants.

44 B, and C had a microgap between the implant-abutment connection of <10 microm, 50 microm, or 100 mic

45 For maxillary implants, at abutment connection the average marginal bone level was

46 For mandibular implants, at abutment connection the mean marginal bone level as meas

47 implant-abutment mismatch sizes and implant-abutment connection types may influence the peri-implant

48 bility of implants from implant placement to abutment connection utilizing resonance frequency analys

49 erage interval between implant insertion and abutment connection was 5.6 months (SD 2.05).

50 Three months after implant placement, abutment connection was performed in the submerged impla

51 istal measurements for maxillary implants at abutment connection were 1.02 mm (SD+/-0.59) and 1.36 mm

52 age mandibular mesial-distal measurements at abutment connection were 1.05 mm (SD+/-0.92) and 1.54 mm

53 Two months after healing-abutment connection, a 2-month plaque control program wa

54 meability to bacteria of the conical implant-abutment connection, and the high prevalence of bacteria

55 d/or mechanical disruption during insertion, abutment connection, or removal of failing implants.

56 Immediately before abutment connection, patients were randomly assigned to

57 ases in levels between implant insertion and abutment connection.

58 urements were taken at implant placement and abutment connection.

59 ained while exposing the implant for healing abutment connection.

60 Contamination of implant abutments could potentially influence the peri-implant t

61 The use of definitive abutments (DAs) at time of implant placement has been in

62 ), and 4.5 mm (conventional matching implant-abutment design [CD]).

63 Reduced abutment diameter (i.e., platform switching) resulted in

64 ge around a bone-level, non-matching implant-abutment diameter configuration that incorporated a hori

65 When the abutment diameter decreased from 5.0 to 4.5 mm and then

66 the coronal aspect of implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal

67 or bone-level implants with matching implant-abutment diameters (butt-joint connections).

68 implant collar and to analyze how different abutment diameters influenced the crestal bone stress le

69 en dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters were placed at the bone crest and wer

70 The two abutments differ in that interface I results in an "in l

71 of implant placement, at 2 months, at every abutment dis/reconnection, and at sacrifice.

72 mplant healing, implants were uncovered, and abutment fixing was done using cyanoacrylate to prevent

73 paired to form a palindrome either by direct abutment, forming the nucleation site for a tandem 2:1 c

74 6 and 18 months were mainly affected by the abutment height but were also significantly influenced b

75 The abutment height is a key factor in MBL.

76 udy, we analyzed the influence of prosthetic abutment height on marginal bone loss (MBL) around impla

77 The size of the microgap at the abutment/implant interface had no significant effect upo

78 face or the microgap between the implant and abutment influences the amount of crestal bone loss in u

79 ividualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a hand buildup tec

80 The geometry of the fixture-abutment interface (FAI) might influence the risk of bac

81 In summary, the absence of an implant-abutment interface (microgap) at the bone crest was asso

82 al dimension of the bone loss at the implant-abutment interface and to determine if this lateral dime

83 An implant-abutment interface at the alveolar bone crest is associa

84 crual increased progressively as the implant-abutment interface depth increased, i.e., subcrestal int

85 Thus, the implant-abutment interface dictates the intensity and location o

86 ver, the size of the microgap at the implant-abutment interface had no significant effect upon cresta

87 microgap that is present between the implant-abutment interface in dental implants.

88 n each hemimandible, positioning the implant-abutment interface in either a supracrestal (+1.5 mm), e

89 emonstrated that the geometry of the fixture-abutment interface influences the risk of bacterial inva

90 lants with a smaller diameter at the implant-abutment interface may be beneficial when multiple impla

91 suggesting that the stability of the implant/abutment interface may have an important early role to p

92 sion of oral microorganisms into the fixture-abutment interface microgap of dental implants with diff

93 sion of oral microorganisms into the fixture-abutment interface microgap under dynamic-loading condit

94 ing to a platform-switching concept (implant abutment interface with a reduced diameter relative to t

95 nced apical to the newly established implant-abutment interface.

96 event microbial invasion through the implant-abutment interface.

97 supracrestal, crestal, or subcrestal implant-abutment interface.

98 All abutment interfaces were placed 1 mm above the alveolar

99 bacterial penetration through their implant-abutment interfaces.

100 design with a horizontally displaced implant-abutment junction has on the height of the crest of bone

101 The horizontally displaced implant-abutment junction provided for a more coronal position o

102 orted for non-horizontally displaced implant-abutment junctions.

103 can be retained between them at the implant-abutment level.

104 xing was done using cyanoacrylate to prevent abutment loosening.

105 MBL rates were higher for prosthetic abutment < 2 mm vs. >/= 2 mm, for periodontal vs. non-pe

106 After disconnection of fixtures and abutments, microbial samples were taken from the threade

107 After disconnection of fixtures and abutments, microbial samples were taken from the threade

108 understood to what extent different implant-abutment mismatch sizes and implant-abutment connection

109 Sets of implants and abutments (n = 30 per group, sets of 180 implants) were

110 increased level of binding suggests that the abutment of a charged general base and a hydrophobic ste

111 ximately 3.1 cm x 2 cm x 2.1 cm in size with abutment of the portal vein-superior mesenteric vein con

112 tected in biofilms on crowns and overdenture abutments of dental implants that had been recovered fro

113 Abutments of different diameters (4.0 mm: 20% platform s

114 ermined MBL was related to the height of the abutments of internal conical connection implants at 6 a

115 attachment loss in natural teeth, serving as abutments of loaded bridges.

116 e location of a microgap between implant and abutment on crestal bone changes are not well understood

117 tched abutments placed according to the "one-abutment-one-time" protocol, with and without plasma of

118 the potential impact of biomaterials at the abutment or bone interfaces may have an influence on the

119 s of dis/reconnection of healing/provisional abutments (PAs).

120 Type C implants had an abutment placed at the time of surgery with the interfac

121 changes around customized, platform-switched abutments placed according to the "one-abutment-one-time

122 d that implants with rough surfaces can have abutments placed and be loaded occlusally as early as 6

123 were taken from the threaded portion of the abutment, plated, and allowed to culture under appropria

124 were taken from the threaded portion of the abutment, plated, and cultured under appropriate conditi

125 One week after healing of abutments, rats were infected with Porphyromonas gingiva

126 to attach the denture with gold cylinders to abutment replicas.

127 interface (microgap) between the implant and abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations.

128 interface (microgap) between the implant and abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations.

129 malpositioned teeth, and teeth used as fixed abutments resulted in worse initial prognoses.

130 ), the peak von Mises stress (EQV stress) in abutment screw, and the bone-implant relative displaceme

131 abutments and implants were held together by abutment screws.

132 esence of bacteria; 2) with the implants and abutments separated for examination of internal surfaces

133 ith increased risk of tooth loss while fixed abutment status was associated with a decreased risk of

134 -form implant was placed 12 mm distal to the abutment teeth into the regenerated bone and was loaded

135 treatment or to functionalize dental implant abutments to improve soft tissue integration.

136 e commercially available Morse taper implant-abutment units tested were not sufficiently small to shi

137 with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM zirconia abutments veneered with hand buildup technique.

138 (ICs) based either on prefabricated zirconia abutments veneered with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM z

139 In Case 1, the healing abutment was placed at the time of implant placement, wh

140 All implants were two-piece (an abutment was to be placed after 6 weeks of healing) and

141 Fixtures and abutments were assembled and allowed to incubate in a ba

142 r subcrestal (-1.5 mm) position, and healing abutments were connected.

143 The abutments were designed with diameters of 3.5 mm (platfo

144 Implant abutments were dis/reconnected at 12, 14, 16, and 18 wee

145 Two standard abutments were either exposed to bacterial culture or le

146 Abutments were either welded (1 -piece) in groups A, B,

147 On the other side, healing abutments were exposed to the oral cavity (non-submerged

148 After implant installation, prosthetic abutments were fixed to the implants and tightened to 20

149 Abutments were placed protruding into the oral cavity 4

150 At the end of the period, the abutments were removed and the internal content of the i

151 Abutments were screwed onto the implants, and the units

152 alis was inoculated inside the implants, and abutments were tightened.

153 ingle crown made of a prefabricated zirconia abutment with pressed ceramic as the veneering material

154 An experimental abutment with the same surface and structure as a commer

155 connected to standard abutments and the same abutments with a 0.5-mm groove modification, respectivel