English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this chart review was to obtain an objective, quantitative assessment of the clinical performance of an implant line used in an implantological office setting. Implants with hydrophilic (INICELL) and hydrophobic (TST; both: Thommen Medical AG, Grenchen, Switzerland) enossal surfaces were compared and the cumulative implant survival rate was calculated. The data of 1063 patients that received 2918 implants (1337 INICELL, 1581 TST) was included. The average follow up time was 2.1 (1.1-5.4) years for INICELL and 4.5 (1.3-5.9) years for TST implants (Thommen Medical AG, Switzerland). In the reported period 7 implants with INICELL (0.5%) and 23 TST implants (1.5%) failed. This difference was statistically significant. The analysis of cases treated and followed up in a single implantological office for 6 years confirmed the very good clinical outcome that was achieved with both used implant lines. Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the overall early failure rate of the hydrophilic implants was significantly lower than that of hydrophobic implants. The use of hydrophilic implants allows the clinician to obtain less early failures, hence the interest of an up-to-date surface for the daily work of an implant practice.

Six-Year Survival and Early Failure Rate of 2918 Implants with Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Enossal Surfaces