Peter Kessler
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Peter Kessler has a total of 15 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
F.W. Neukam
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstrasse 11, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
3 shared publicationsA. Bloch-Birkholz
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstrasse 11, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
2 shared publications- Emeka Nkenke
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2 shared publications Andreas Schlegel
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glueckstrasse 11, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
1 shared publicationFrank Rudolf Kloss
1 shared publicationFriedrich Wilhelm Neukam
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glueckstrasse 11, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 June 2007
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 45 (4) , 284-287
Dynamic periosteal elevation
- 1 June 2007
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 45 (4) , 284-287
Dynamic periosteal elevation
- 30 April 2006
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 44 (2) , 103-106
Feasibility of an endoscopic approach to the submandibular neck region—Experimental and clinical results
- 30 April 2006
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 44 (2) , 103-106
Feasibility of an endoscopic approach to the submandibular neck region—Experimental and clinical results
- 1 October 2005
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 43 (5) , 392-398
Effects of distraction forces and frequency of distraction on bony regeneration
- 1 October 2005
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 43 (5) , 392-398
Effects of distraction forces and frequency of distraction on bony regeneration
- 1 February 2005
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 43 (1) , 51-56
Harvesting of bone from the iliac crest—comparison of the anterior and posterior sites
- 1 February 2005
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Vol. 43 (1) , 51-56
Harvesting of bone from the iliac crest—comparison of the anterior and posterior sites
- 27 August 2003
- Vol. 18 (4) , 505-11
Bone conditioning to enhance implant osseointegration: an experimental study in pigs.
Osseointegration of implants depends on time and the local bone conditions regarding quality and quantity. This led to the bone classification by Lekholm and Zarb. The aim of the present study was to enhance osseointegration of implants through conditioning of the bone bed and to compare in this context the efficacy of bone condensation, an osteoinductive collagen (Colloss), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Porcine frontal skull bone was used for the preparation of Identical-size implant beds. Before placement of the implants (Ankylos, 3.5 x 4 mm), the implant beds were untreated (control) or conditioned with condensation, Colloss, or PRP. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The specimens were then compared and analyzed by microradiography, and statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. At the early observation times, significant effects on the sites of topical bone conditioning in comparison to the control group could be seen regarding the implant-bone interface (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 60%, condensation 73%, PRP 47%; 4 weeks: control 39%, Colloss 51%, condensation 40%, PRP 42%) and peri-implant bone density (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 48%, condensation 59%, PRP 39%; 4 weeks: control 47%, Colloss 53%, condensation 41%, PRP 50%). A leveling of the results between groups was found at 8 weeks (implant-bone interface: control 51%, Colloss 58%, condensation 55%, PRP 62%; peri-implant bone density: control 50%, Colloss 55%, condensation 51%, PRP 51%). Overall, bone condensation and Colloss apparently influenced bone formation process from the onset, but over the entire 8-week healing period, differences in bone formation were not significant It can be stated that, in the initial healing phase, an effect of topical bone conditioning may be achieved by the different described methods.
- 27 August 2003
- Vol. 18 (4) , 505-11
Bone conditioning to enhance implant osseointegration: an experimental study in pigs.
Osseointegration of implants depends on time and the local bone conditions regarding quality and quantity. This led to the bone classification by Lekholm and Zarb. The aim of the present study was to enhance osseointegration of implants through conditioning of the bone bed and to compare in this context the efficacy of bone condensation, an osteoinductive collagen (Colloss), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Porcine frontal skull bone was used for the preparation of Identical-size implant beds. Before placement of the implants (Ankylos, 3.5 x 4 mm), the implant beds were untreated (control) or conditioned with condensation, Colloss, or PRP. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The specimens were then compared and analyzed by microradiography, and statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. At the early observation times, significant effects on the sites of topical bone conditioning in comparison to the control group could be seen regarding the implant-bone interface (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 60%, condensation 73%, PRP 47%; 4 weeks: control 39%, Colloss 51%, condensation 40%, PRP 42%) and peri-implant bone density (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 48%, condensation 59%, PRP 39%; 4 weeks: control 47%, Colloss 53%, condensation 41%, PRP 50%). A leveling of the results between groups was found at 8 weeks (implant-bone interface: control 51%, Colloss 58%, condensation 55%, PRP 62%; peri-implant bone density: control 50%, Colloss 55%, condensation 51%, PRP 51%). Overall, bone condensation and Colloss apparently influenced bone formation process from the onset, but over the entire 8-week healing period, differences in bone formation were not significant It can be stated that, in the initial healing phase, an effect of topical bone conditioning may be achieved by the different described methods.