Lekholm U, Wannfors K, Isaksson S, Adielsson B
The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health and Faculty of Odontology, University of Göteborg, Sweden.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 Jun;28(3):181-7.
A retrospective, multicenter, Scandinavian study of bone grafting of alveolar processes of severely atrophic jaws in combination with implant insertion was conducted with 150 patients. Five different grafting techniques were assessed: local or full onlay; inlay; combination of onlay/inlay grafts; and LeFort I osteotomies. The majority of the patients were treated using a one-stage approach (n = 125) and all had autogenous bone grafts. A total of 781 Brånemark implants were inserted, of which 624 were placed in bone grafts and alveolar bone. Twenty-five patients (17%) dropped out during the follow-up period of three years. Within the remaining patients, 77% of the inserted implants (n = 516) were still in function at the end of the follow-up period. A further ten implants were kept mucosa-covered, resulting in an overall implant survival rate of around 80%. Onlays, inlays and LeFort I osteotomies showed almost the same success rates (76-84%), whereas the onlay/inlay technique gave rise to less favourable results (60%). Most of the observed losses (n = 131) took place during healing and the first year of loading. More implants were lost when they were inserted simultaneously with the grafting (23%) than when they were placed in a second stage (10%). The latter technique was used mainly in combination with local onlay grafting (16/25). The failure percentage for implants inserted in non-grafted bone (11%) was lower than for those inserted in bone grafts and alveolar bone (25%). The surviving implants of treated and followed patients served, in 88% of the cases (n = 110), to support fixed bridges or overdentures, albeit, in some instances (n = 23), after additional implant placement. In only 15 patients was it necessary to fall back on conventional removable prostheses or fixed partial bridges.
对150例患者进行了一项回顾性、多中心的斯堪的纳维亚研究,该研究涉及严重萎缩颌骨牙槽突植骨联合种植体植入。评估了五种不同的植骨技术:局部或全层覆盖;嵌入;覆盖/嵌入植骨联合;以及LeFort I截骨术。大多数患者采用一期手术治疗(n = 125),且均使用自体骨移植。共植入781枚Brånemark种植体,其中624枚植入骨移植区和牙槽骨。25例患者(17%)在三年随访期内退出。在其余患者中,随访期末仍有77%的植入种植体(n = 516)功能良好。另有10枚种植体保持黏膜覆盖,总体种植体存活率约为80%。覆盖、嵌入和LeFort I截骨术的成功率几乎相同(76 - 84%),而覆盖/嵌入技术的效果较差(60%)。观察到的大多数种植体丢失(n = 131)发生在愈合期和加载的第一年。与二期植入(10%)相比,种植体与植骨同时植入时丢失更多(23%)。后一种技术主要与局部覆盖植骨联合使用(16/25)。植入非植骨区的种植体失败率(11%)低于植入骨移植区和牙槽骨的种植体(25%)。在88%的病例(n = 110)中,接受治疗并随访患者的存活种植体用于支持固定桥或覆盖义齿,尽管在某些情况下(n = 23)需要额外植入种植体。仅15例患者需要采用传统的可摘义齿或固定局部桥修复。