Italian term (edited): violazione (in contesto)

Hi texjax

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kliin/vk/ma/adverse...

Implant success criteria. In 1978, the first success criteria were suggested by the US National Institutes of Health.
1) bone loss no greater than one-third of the vertical height of the implant; 2) good occlusal balance and vertical dimension; 3) gingival inflammation amenable to treatment; 4) mobility of less than 1 mm in any direction; 5) absence of symptoms and infection; 6) absence of damage to adjacent teeth; 7) absence of
parathesia or anesthesia or *violation of the mandibular canal*, maxillary sinus or floor of the nasal passage; 8) healthy collagenous tissue without polymorphonuclear
infiltration; 9) provision of functional service for five years in 75% of the cases”
(Dental Implants, NIH Consensus Statement, 1978). .
In 1986, modified criteria were suggested by Albrektsson and co-authors: “1) implants are clinically immobile; 2) a radiograph not demonstrating any evidence of peri-implant radiolucency; 3) vertical bone loss less than 0.2 mm annually following
the implant’s first year of service; 4) individual implant performance to be characterized by an absence of persistent and irreversible signs and symptoms such as pain, infections, neuropathies, paresthesia, or *violation of the mandibular canal*; 5) success rate of 85% at the end of a five-year observation period and 80% at the end of a ten-year period to be the minimum criterion for success” (Albrektsson et al., 1986).
These are practical and easy to use in assessment of dental implants. More recently, criteria for implants were approved by The American Academy of Periodontology in 2000 (Iacono, 2000). These include: “1) absence of persistent signs/symptoms such as pain, infection, neuropathies, parathesias, and *violation of
vital structures*; 2) implant immobility; 3) no continuous peri-implant radiolucency; 4) negligible progressive bone loss (less than 0.2 mm annually) after physiologic remodeling during the first year of function; 5) patient/dentist satisfaction with the
implant-supported restoration” (Iacono, 2000). These are clear and concise criteria.