CAMLOG Summary – Length, diameter, time

Surname First Name Street City, Postcode Telephone E-mail Fax to: CAMLOG Biotechnologies AG Ě Margarethenstrasse 38 &+ %DVHO Ě 6ZLW]HUODQG Ě ZZZ FDPORJ FRP Phone +41 61 565 41 00 Fax +41 61 565 41 01 Please, send me further information about the CAMLOG ® /CONELOG ® Implant System. Science / Clinical Research Results confirmed in everyday practice: The reproduci- bility of these results in everyday practice was confirmed by Franchini et al. (2011) [13]. With CAMLOG ® implants, they achieved a success rate of 99.5% over an observation peri- od of at least one year after loading and up to 78 months. Treatment successes were independent of the times of im- plantation or loading, as well as of implant lengths. In total, data from 96 patients with 201 implants in different indi- cations were analyzed; 158 were placed in partially edentu- lous patients, 49 in single tooth gaps. Conclusions The use of CAMLOG ® implants in various indications has been scientifically documented. Excellent implant survival rates and treatment successes with very good predictability have been observed in studies. In this article, the use of CAMLOG ® implants in partially edentulous patients in the maxilla and mandible at various lengths and diameters, as well as different implantation and loading times has been systematically reported. REFERENCES [1] Krennmair G, Seemann R, Schmidinger S, Ewers R, Piehslinger E. Cli- nical outcome of root-shaped dental implants of various diameters: 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 357–366 [2] Strietzel FP, Reichart PA. Oral rehabilitation using CAMLOG ® screw- cylinder implants with a particle-blasted and acid-etched microstruc- tured surface. Results from a prospective study with special considera- tion of short implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18:591–600 [3] Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. One-stage versus two-stage implant placement. A Cochrane-syste- matic review of randomised, controlled clinical trials. Eur J Oral Im- plantol 2009; 2: 91–99 [4] Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, im- mediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane-systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010; 3: 189–205 [5] Zafiropoulos GGK, Deli G, Bartee BK , Hoffmann O. Single tooth im- plant placement and loading in fresh and regenerated extraction so- ckets. 5-year results. A case series using two different implant designs. J Periodontol 2010; 81: 604–615 [6] De Lange GL, Randelzhofer P, Sipos P, de Bruin M, Both CJ. Survival and risks of immediately placed anterior implants Poster 19th Annual Scientific Meeting EAO Glasgow, October 6–9, 2010 [7] Siebers D, Gehrke P, Schliephake H. Immediate versus delayed function of dental implants: A 1- to 7-year follow-up study of 222 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 1195–1202 [8] Nelson K, Semper W, Hildebrand D, Özyuvaci H. A retrospective ana- lysis of sandblasted, acid-etched implants with reduced healing times with an observation period of up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 726–732 [9] Semper W, Heberer S, Nelson K. Early loading of root form and co- nical implants with a sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched surface: A 6-year clinical followup. Implants 2008; 2:14–19 [10] Buser D, Ingmarsson S, Dula K, Lussi A, Hirt HP, Belser UC. Long-term stability of osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: A 5-year prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002; 22: 108–117 [11] Özkan Y, Akoglu B, Kulak-Özkan Y. Five-year treatment outcomes with four types of implants in the posterior maxilla and mandible in partially edentulous patients: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxil- lofac Implants 2011; 26: 639–647 [12] Ozkan Y, Ozcan M, Akoglu B, Ucankale M, Kulak-Ozkan Y. Three- year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible of partially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 78–84 [13] Franchini I, Capelli M, Fumagalli L, Parenti A, Testori T. Multicenter retrospective analysis of 201 consecutively placed CAMLOG ® dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31: 255–263 Order Peters F, Wanner H. Länge, Durchmesser, Zeit – welche Faktoren beeinflussen den Behandlungserfolg mit CAMLOG ® Implantaten? Logo 2011;25:6-7 Length, diameter, time – which factors affect treatment successes with CAMLOG ® implants?