Naert I E, Duyck J A, Hosny M M, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/BIOMAT Research Group, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Jun;12(3):245-51. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003245.x.
A total of 123 patients were followed between January 1983 and July 1998 with 140 tooth-implant connected prostheses. The age of the patients at prosthesis installation ranged from 20 to 79 years (mean 51.8). 339 (Brånemark(R) system) implants were connected to 313 teeth. The loading time ranged from 1.5 to 15 years (mean: 6.5). 123 patients were randomly selected as a control group with freestanding implant-supported prostheses only. The age of the patients at prosthesis installation ranged from 22 to 78 years (mean 52.3). The loading time for the 329 freestanding (Brånemark(R) system) implants ranged from 1.3 to 14.5 years (mean: 6.2). Evolution of the marginal bone stability around the implant in the tooth-implant connected as well as the freestanding group was studied with respect to the prognosis of the implants. Over the period from 0 to 15 years, there was significantly more marginal bone loss (0.7 mm) in tooth-implant connected versus freestanding prostheses. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found between the non-rigid tooth-implant connected prostheses versus freestanding prostheses. However, there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss for rigid and multi-connected tooth-implant connected prostheses versus freestanding ones. The results of this study indicate that more bone is lost around implants which are rigidly connected to teeth. This suggests that bending load, which is increased in tooth-implant connected prostheses, might be responsible for this phenomenon. These observations favor the use of freestanding prostheses whenever possible. However, the clinical significance of greater bone loss in rigid versus non-rigid connections might outweigh the annoying phenomenon of tooth intrusion in the case of non-rigid tooth connection, when connection is considered.
1983年1月至1998年7月期间，共对123例患者的140个牙种植体连接假体进行了随访。患者安装假体时的年龄在20至79岁之间（平均51.8岁）。339颗（Brånemark®系统）种植体与313颗牙齿相连。加载时间为1.5至15年（平均：6.5年）。随机选择123例患者作为仅使用独立种植体支持假体的对照组。患者安装假体时的年龄在22至78岁之间（平均52.3岁）。329颗独立（Brånemark®系统）种植体的加载时间为1.3至14.5年（平均：6.2年）。针对种植体的预后，研究了牙种植体连接组和独立组中种植体周围边缘骨稳定性的变化。在0至15年期间，牙种植体连接假体的边缘骨丢失（0.7毫米）明显多于独立假体。非刚性牙种植体连接假体与独立假体之间的边缘骨丢失没有显著差异。然而，刚性和多连接牙种植体连接假体与独立假体之间的边缘骨丢失存在显著差异。本研究结果表明，与牙齿刚性连接的种植体周围骨丢失更多。这表明牙种植体连接假体中增加的弯曲载荷可能是导致这种现象的原因。这些观察结果支持尽可能使用独立假体。然而，当考虑连接时，刚性连接与非刚性连接中更大骨丢失的临床意义可能超过非刚性牙连接情况下牙齿侵入这一恼人现象。
