FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1969868105> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1969868105 endingPage "296" @default.
• W1969868105 startingPage "290" @default.
• W1969868105 abstract "Statement of problem Dental implants placed into previously radiated fields in survivors of head and neck cancer can demonstrate survival rates that are less than optimal. Understanding this behavior may assist with treatment planning in accordance with expected survival rates in these patients. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the survival of implants with turned and roughened surfaces placed in patients who had previously received head and neck radiation, and to identify factors associated with implant failure. Material and methods The records of 48 patients who had prior head and neck radiation and had 271 dental implants placed between May 1987 and July 2008 were examined. All of the implants were placed in a previously irradiated field dosed to at least 50 Gy. Implant survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and univariate Cox models with robust standard errors were fitted to evaluate the association between patient/implant factors and implant failure. Results There were 62 implants placed in the maxilla (32 roughened, 30 turned) and 209 implants (107 roughened, 102 turned) placed in the mandible. The 5-year implant survival rate for implants placed in the maxilla was 72.6% for turned implants and 87.5% for roughened implants. For implants placed in the mandible, the 5-year survival rate was 91.7% for turned implants and 100% for roughened implants. Among implants with a turned surface, implants were more likely to fail if they were placed in the maxilla (P=.008) and if the diameter was ≤3.75 mm (P=.002). Conclusions Implants with turned surfaces were 2.9 times more likely to fail compared to the roughened dental implants, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. For implants with turned surfaces, there was a tendency for implants in the maxilla to fail more frequently compared to the mandible. Implants with turned surfaces had a higher likelihood of failure in the posterior region than in the anterior region. For implants with roughened surface there was no significant association between implant survival and location of the implant, type of bone, or length or diameter of the implant. Dental implants placed into previously radiated fields in survivors of head and neck cancer can demonstrate survival rates that are less than optimal. Understanding this behavior may assist with treatment planning in accordance with expected survival rates in these patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival of implants with turned and roughened surfaces placed in patients who had previously received head and neck radiation, and to identify factors associated with implant failure. The records of 48 patients who had prior head and neck radiation and had 271 dental implants placed between May 1987 and July 2008 were examined. All of the implants were placed in a previously irradiated field dosed to at least 50 Gy. Implant survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and univariate Cox models with robust standard errors were fitted to evaluate the association between patient/implant factors and implant failure. There were 62 implants placed in the maxilla (32 roughened, 30 turned) and 209 implants (107 roughened, 102 turned) placed in the mandible. The 5-year implant survival rate for implants placed in the maxilla was 72.6% for turned implants and 87.5% for roughened implants. For implants placed in the mandible, the 5-year survival rate was 91.7% for turned implants and 100% for roughened implants. Among implants with a turned surface, implants were more likely to fail if they were placed in the maxilla (P=.008) and if the diameter was ≤3.75 mm (P=.002). Implants with turned surfaces were 2.9 times more likely to fail compared to the roughened dental implants, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. For implants with turned surfaces, there was a tendency for implants in the maxilla to fail more frequently compared to the mandible. Implants with turned surfaces had a higher likelihood of failure in the posterior region than in the anterior region. For implants with roughened surface there was no significant association between implant survival and location of the implant, type of bone, or length or diameter of the implant." @default.
• W1969868105 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5008802399 @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5010282758 @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5044284172 @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5075594469 @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5089014790 @default.
• W1969868105 creator A5089766682 @default.
• W1969868105 date "2011-11-01" @default.
• W1969868105 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1969868105 title "Survival of turned and roughened dental implants in irradiated head and neck cancer patients: A retrospective analysis" @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1522368332 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1614400203 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1982239608 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1982694966 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1986132415 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W1994075454 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2012294427 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2015627252 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2015915296 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2021701457 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2058319119 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2099130320 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W2155442777 @default.
• W1969868105 cites W4244113778 @default.
• W1969868105 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(11)60133-9" @default.
• W1969868105 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22024178" @default.
• W1969868105 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1969868105 type Work @default.
• W1969868105 sameAs 1969868105 @default.
• W1969868105 citedByCount "24" @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052012 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052013 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052014 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052015 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052016 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052017 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052018 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052020 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052022 @default.
• W1969868105 countsByYear W19698681052023 @default.
• W1969868105 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5008802399 @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5010282758 @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5044284172 @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5075594469 @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5089014790 @default.
• W1969868105 hasAuthorship W1969868105A5089766682 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C122246415 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C144301174 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C157369684 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2776283816 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2776530083 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2778614594 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2779767645 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2780338112 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C3018411727 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C38180746 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C122246415 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C126322002 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C141071460 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C144301174 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C157369684 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C199343813 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2776283816 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2776530083 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2778614594 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2779767645 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2780338112 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C2781411149 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C29694066 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C3018411727 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C38180746 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C509974204 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C59822182 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C71924100 @default.
• W1969868105 hasConceptScore W1969868105C86803240 @default.
• W1969868105 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1969868105 hasLocation W19698681051 @default.
• W1969868105 hasLocation W19698681052 @default.
• W1969868105 hasOpenAccess W1969868105 @default.
• W1969868105 hasPrimaryLocation W19698681051 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W1969868105 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W2122846005 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W2405848537 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W2589424220 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W2789207996 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W28127583 @default.
• W1969868105 hasRelatedWork W2901072134 @default.

• next