Zitzmann N U, Schärer P, Marinello C P
Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and TMJ Disorders, Dental School, University of Basel, Switzerland.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 May-Jun;16(3):355-66.
The aim of this prospective 5-year longitudinal study was to follow endosteal implants in which guided bone regeneration (GBR) was applied during implant placement. In 75 patients, defects around implants (Branemark System) were treated with Bio-Oss and Bio-Gide (112 implants). In split-mouth patients in this group, Bio-Oss and Gore-Tex were used in the second defect site (41 implants). All 75 patients had at least 1 implant that was entirely surrounded by bone and served as the control (112 implants). After placement of the definitive prostheses (single-tooth, fixed, or removable implant prostheses), patients were recalled after 6 months and then every 12 months during a 5-year observation period. The following variables were investigated: implant survival, marginal bone level (MBL), presence of plaque, peri-implant mucosal conditions, height of keratinized mucosa (KM), and marginal soft tissue level (MSTL). The cumulative implant survival rate after 5 years varied between 93% and 97% for implants treated with or without GBR. The mean MBL after 60 months was 1.83 mm for sites treated with Bio-Oss and Bio-Gide, 2.21 mm for sites treated with Bio-Oss and Gore-Tex, and 1.73 mm for the control sites. The MBL values were found to increase significantly with time and differed significantly among the treatment groups. During the observation period, KM varied between 3.16 and 3.02 mm. A slight recession of 0.1 mm was observed, and plaque was found in 15% of all sites and was associated with inflammatory symptoms of the peri-implant mucosa. It was observed that such symptoms and recession correlated more strongly with the type of restoration than with the type of treatment. This study demonstrated that implants placed with or without GBR techniques had similar survival rates after 5 years, but that bone resorption was more pronounced in sites with GBR treatment. It was assumed that the use of GBR is indeed indicated when the initial defect size is larger than 2 mm in the vertical dimension.
这项前瞻性5年纵向研究的目的是跟踪在种植体植入过程中应用引导骨再生(GBR)的骨内种植体。75例患者的种植体(Branemark系统)周围缺损采用Bio-Oss和Bio-Gide进行治疗(112枚种植体)。在该组的双侧对照患者中,第二个缺损部位使用Bio-Oss和Gore-Tex(41枚种植体)。所有75例患者至少有1枚完全被骨组织包围的种植体作为对照(112枚种植体)。在植入最终修复体(单颗牙、固定或可摘种植修复体)后,患者在6个月后复诊,然后在5年观察期内每12个月复诊一次。研究了以下变量:种植体存留率、边缘骨水平(MBL)、菌斑的存在、种植体周围黏膜状况、角化黏膜高度(KM)和边缘软组织水平(MSTL)。采用或未采用GBR治疗的种植体5年后的累积存留率在93%至97%之间。Bio-Oss和Bio-Gide治疗部位60个月后的平均MBL为1.83mm,Bio-Oss和Gore-Tex治疗部位为2.21mm,对照部位为1.73mm。发现MBL值随时间显著增加,且各治疗组之间存在显著差异。在观察期内,KM在3.16至3.02mm之间变化。观察到有0.1mm的轻微退缩,所有部位中有15%发现有菌斑,且与种植体周围黏膜的炎症症状相关。观察到此类症状和退缩与修复类型的相关性比与治疗类型的相关性更强。这项研究表明,采用或未采用GBR技术植入的种植体5年后的存留率相似,但GBR治疗部位的骨吸收更为明显。据推测,当初始缺损在垂直方向上大于2mm时,确实需要使用GBR。