uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Aludden, Hanna
    et al.
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aalborg, Denmark..
    Dahlin, Anna
    Univ Gothenburg, BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Ctr, Inst Surg Sci, Dept Biomat,Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden..
    Starch-Jensen, Thomas
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aalborg, Denmark..
    Dahlin, Christer
    Univ Gothenburg, BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Ctr, Inst Surg Sci, Dept Biomat,Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden.;NU Hosp Org, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Trollhattan, Sweden..
    Mordenfeld, Arne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden.
    Histomorphometric analyses of area fraction of different ratios of Bio-Oss((R)) and bone prior to grafting procedures - An in vitro study to demonstrate a baseline2018In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 29, no 2, p. 185-191Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the area fraction of different ratios of Bio-Oss((R)) and bone, prior to grafting in an in vitro model to demonstrate a histomorphometric baseline.

    Methods: Bio-Oss((R)) particles were mixed with autogenous bone from pig jaw in three different ratios (50:50, 80:20 and 100:0) and packed in rice paper in a standardized procedure. Histomorphometric analyses were performed in 25 specimens and 74 regions of interest. The area percentage of Bio-Oss((R)), bone, and non-mineralized tissue (NMT) were calculated. Results were reported as mean values and 95% confidence interval (CI).

    Results: The mean area fraction of Bio-Oss((R)) was 20.6% (CI: 18.2-23) in the 50:50 mixture, 33.6% (CI: 29.7-37.6) in the 80:20 mixture, and 43.4% (CI: 40.5-46.3) in the 100:0 mixture. The mean area fraction of NMT was 60.5% (CI: 57.9-63.1) in the 50:50 mixture, 59.6% (CI: 56.4-62.7) in the 80:20 mixture, and 56.6% (CI: 53.7-59.5) in the 100:0 mixture. The mean area fraction of bone was 18.9% (CI: 16.9-20.9) in the 50:50 mixture and 6.8% (CI: 5-8.6) in the 80:20 mixture.

    Conclusion: There is a great difference in the clinically estimated percentage and the histomorphometrically evaluated percentage of Bio-Oss((R)) at baseline, prior to grafting. The area fraction of different tissues presented in this study may be beneficial as guidance for histomorphometrical baseline calculations when different mixtures of Bio-Oss((R)) and autogenous bone are used as grafting materials.

  • 2.
    Aludden, Hanna
    et al.
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 18-22 Hobrovej, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
    Mordenfeld, Arne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden.
    Hallman, Mats
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden.
    Christensen, Ann-Eva
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Unit Epidemiol & Biostatist, Aalborg, Denmark.
    Starch-Jensen, Thomas
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 18-22 Hobrovej, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
    Osteotome-Mediated Sinus Floor Elevation With or Without a Grafting Material: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Long-term Studies (>= 5-Years)2018In: Implant Dentistry, ISSN 1056-6163, E-ISSN 1538-2982, Vol. 27, no 4, p. 488-497Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: To test the hypothesis of no difference in the long-term treatment outcome after osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation with or without a grafting material. Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted, including human studies published in English from January 1, 1986 to December 1, 2017. Results: One comparative and 7 noncomparative studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Survival of suprastructures had never been compared within the same study. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall estimated patient-based implant survival of 94%. Gain in vertical alveolar bone height was similar with the 2 treatment modalities. Noncomparative studies demonstrated high long-term survival rate of suprastructures and implants with the 2 treatment modalities, as well as limited periimplant marginal bone loss. Conclusion: High long-term implant survival was demonstrated after osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation with or without a grafting material. However, long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 treatment modalities are sparse. Hence, conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.

  • 3.
    Mordenfeld, Arne
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden.
    Aludden, Hanna
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aalborg, Denmark..
    Starch-Jensen, Thomas
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aalborg, Denmark..
    Lateral ridge augmentation with two different ratios of deproteinized bovine bone and autogenous bone: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized and controlled trial2017In: Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, ISSN 1523-0899, E-ISSN 1708-8208, Vol. 19, no 5, p. 884-894Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: The optimal ratio of deproteinized bovine bone (DPBB) and autogenous bone (AB) for lateral augmentation is presently unknown.

    Purpose: To evaluate implant treatment outcome and radiological graft changes after lateral ridge augmentation with 2 different mixtures of DPBB and AB, 2 years after functional loading.

    Materials and methods: Thirteen patients were included in a split mouth, randomized, controlled trial. Four partially edentulous and 10 totally edentulous jaws with an alveolar ridge width of <4 mm were augmented with a graft mixture of 90: 10 (DPBB: AB) on one side and 60: 40 (DPBB: AB) on the contra lateral side. Graft width changes were measured on CBCT scans at different time points. Implant survival and success rates were calculated. Resonance frequency analysis and marginal bone measurements were performed after 2 years of loading.

    Results: The survival rate was 94.4% for implants installed in the 90: 10 and 100% for implants installed in the 60: 40. There were no statistically significant differences in survival rate or success rate between the mixtures. The width was 5.7 mm and 6.2 mm, respectively for the 2 groups without any significant difference between the groups after 2 years of loading. There was a significant difference in graft reduction between the groups, 54.4% (90: 10) and 37.5% (60: 40), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in implant stability or marginal bone levels at any time points.

    Conclusions: The 2 treatment modalities may be successfully used for lateral ridge augmentation and presented good clinical results after 2 years of loading. However, long-term RCTs are required before final conclusions can be provided on this specific topic.

  • 4.
    Starch-Jensen, T.
    et al.
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 18-22 Hobrovej, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark..
    Aludden, H.
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 18-22 Hobrovej, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark..
    Hallman, Mats
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden..
    Dahlin, C.
    Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Inst Surg Sci, BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Ctr,Dept Biomat, Gothenburg, Sweden.;NU Hospital Org, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Trollhattan, Sweden..
    Christensen, A. -E
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Unit Epidemiol & Biostat, Aalborg, Denmark.
    Mordenfeld, Arne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden..
    A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term studies (five or more years) assessing maxillary sinus floor augmentation2018In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, ISSN 0901-5027, E-ISSN 1399-0020, Vol. 47, no 1, p. 103-116Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in long-term (>= 5 years) implant treatment outcomes after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft compared to a mixture of autogenous bone graft and bone substitutes or bone substitutes alone. A MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English between January 1, 1990 and October 1, 2016 were included. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The survival of suprastructures has never been compared within the same study. The 5-year implant survival after MSFA with autogenous bone graft was 97%, compared to 95% for Bio-Oss; the reduction in vertical height of the augmented sinus was equivalent with the two treatment modalities. Non comparative studies demonstrated high survival rates for suprastructures and implants regardless of the grafting material used. Meta-analysis revealed an overall estimated patient-based implant survival of 95% (confidence interval 0.92-0.96). High implant stability quotient values, high patient satisfaction, and limited peri-implant marginal bone loss were revealed in non-comparative studies. No long-term randomized controlled trial comparing the different treatment modalities was identified. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.

  • 5.
    Starch-Jensen, Thomas
    et al.
    Aalborg Univ Hosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 18-22 Hobrovej, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
    Mordenfeld, Arne
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Publ Hlth Serv, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gavle, Sweden.
    Becktor, Jonas Peter
    Malmo Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg & Oral Med, Malmo, Sweden.
    Jensen, Simon Storgard
    Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Rigshosp, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Synthetic Bone Substitutes Compared With Other Grafting Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis2018In: Implant Dentistry, ISSN 1056-6163, E-ISSN 1538-2982, Vol. 27, no 3, p. 363-374Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: To test the hypotheses of no differences in implant treatment outcome after maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with synthetic bone substitutes (SBS) compared with other grafting materials applying the lateral window technique. Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library search in combination with hand-search of selected journals was conducted. Results: Five randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SBS disclosed high survival rate of suprastructures and implants with no significant differences compared to autogenous bone graft or xenograft. Meta-analysis revealed a patient-based implant survival rate of 0.98 (confidence interval: 0.89-1.08), indicating no differences between SBS and xenograft. SBS demonstrated significant less newly formed bone compared with autogenous bone graft, whereas no significant difference was revealed as compared to xenograft. High implant stability values, limited periimplant marginal bone loss, and few complications were reported with SBS. Conclusions: There seem to be no differences in implant treatment outcome after MSFA with SBS compared to other grafting materials.

1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf