Fiorellini J P, Buser D, Paquette D W, Williams R C, Haghighi D, Weber H P
Department of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
J Periodontol. 1999 Mar;70(3):248-54. doi: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.3.248.
The rehabilitation of the oral cavity with dental implants has become a predictable treatment modality. However, there have been only a few direct comparisons evaluating the submerged and nonsubmerged placement techniques. The purpose of this study was to characterize radiographic peri-implant bone changes following the insertion of submerged and nonsubmerged implants in the beagle dog.
At the end of the extraction healing phase, 19 submerged and 19 nonsubmerged implants were randomly placed in a split-mouth study design and observed over an 18-week period. For submerged implants, a second stage surgery and transmucosal abutment attachment was performed at week 12. Standardized dental radiographs taken at baseline, week 12, and week 18 were used to measure peri-implant bone changes. The radiographs were analyzed with a simple computer assisted method.
A total of 43 standardized radiographs were exposed to evaluate the 38 implants. During the study period, all submerged and nonsubmerged implants demonstrated peri-implant bone loss. At baseline, both submerged and nonsubmerged implants had similar bone levels (P > or = 0.05). When the mean peri-implant bone levels for submerged and nonsubmerged implants were compared from baseline to week 12, nonsubmerged implants had a significantly greater amount and rate of bone resorption than submerged implants (P < or = 0.05). Following week 12, the initially submerged implant had a significantly higher rate and amount of peri-implant bone loss than the nonsubmerged implants (P < or = 0.05). However, by the end of the study period, week 18, both submerged and nonsubmerged implants had comparable bone levels (P > or = 0.05).
The study indicates that, although the temporal patterns of peri-implant bone resorption differed, there were no differences between submerged and nonsubmerged implants in the overall amount and rate of peri-implant bone loss.
牙种植体用于口腔修复已成为一种可预期的治疗方式。然而，仅有少数研究对潜入式和非潜入式种植技术进行了直接比较。本研究的目的是描述比格犬植入潜入式和非潜入式种植体后种植体周围骨组织的影像学变化特征。
在拔牙愈合期结束时，采用双侧对照研究设计，随机植入19枚潜入式种植体和19枚非潜入式种植体，并观察18周。对于潜入式种植体，在第12周进行二期手术并安装穿黏膜基台。在基线、第12周和第18周拍摄标准化牙科X线片，以测量种植体周围骨组织的变化。采用简单的计算机辅助方法对X线片进行分析。
共拍摄43张标准化X线片以评估38枚种植体。在研究期间，所有潜入式和非潜入式种植体均出现种植体周围骨吸收。在基线时，潜入式和非潜入式种植体的骨水平相似（P≥0.05）。比较基线至第12周潜入式和非潜入式种植体的平均种植体周围骨水平，非潜入式种植体的骨吸收量和吸收率均显著高于潜入式种植体（P≤0.05）。第12周后，最初的潜入式种植体的种植体周围骨丢失率和丢失量显著高于非潜入式种植体（P≤0.05）。然而，到研究期末，即第18周时，潜入式和非潜入式种植体的骨水平相当（P≥0.05）。
该研究表明，虽然种植体周围骨吸收的时间模式有所不同，但潜入式和非潜入式种植体在种植体周围骨丢失的总量和速率方面并无差异。
