Moberg L E, Köndell P A, Sagulin G B, Bolin A, Heimdahl A, Gynther G W
Department of Prosthodontics, Karolinska Institute, S-141 04 Huddinge, Sweden.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Oct;12(5):450-61. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120504.x.
In a randomized prospective study, two implant systems were compared in forty consecutive patients treated for mandibular edentulism. The patients were randomly allotted for treatment by the Brånemark two-stage (submerged) system (BRS), or the ITI(R) one-stage (non-submerged) system. In all, 102 Brånemark selftapping implants and 106 ITI hollow screw implants were installed and all patients were treated with full bridges. Biological and prosthodontic parameters, complications, success rates, clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction and resource requirements were evaluated. No differences were found in plaque accumulation, bleeding or complications during the follow-up period. The BRS group showed deeper periimplant sulcus, less attached mucosa, larger bridge-mucosa distance and higher Periotest values. Prosthetic complications were not related to the configuration of the implant systems. After 3 years, the cumulative success rates were 97.9% and 96.8% for the Brånemark and ITI systems, respectively (difference not statistically significant). One implant in the BRS group had failed to osseointegrate at the time of abutment connection, and another was lost after 2 years due to progressive breakdown of bone. In the ITI group, three implants showed progressive bone loss after 1-3 years associated with periimplant infection. All 40 bridges were intact and remained stable throughout the study. There was general patient satisfaction, but about half the Brånemark patients reported difficulty in coping with the surgical procedures. Treatment time was similar for the two systems. It is concluded that both systems meet the current requirements for dental implant systems in the treatment of mandibular edentulism.
在一项随机前瞻性研究中，对40例连续接受下颌无牙颌治疗的患者使用的两种种植系统进行了比较。患者被随机分配接受Brånemark两阶段（潜入式）系统（BRS）或ITI单阶段（非潜入式）系统治疗。总共植入了102枚Brånemark自攻式种植体和106枚ITI空心螺钉种植体，所有患者均接受全口桥修复治疗。评估了生物学和修复学参数、并发症、成功率、临床疗效、患者满意度和资源需求。随访期间，在菌斑积聚、出血或并发症方面未发现差异。BRS组的种植体周围沟更深，附着黏膜更少，桥体与黏膜距离更大，Periotest值更高。修复并发症与种植系统的结构无关。3年后，Brånemark系统和ITI系统的累积成功率分别为97.9%和96.8%（差异无统计学意义）。BRS组有1枚种植体在连接基台时未能实现骨结合，另一枚在2年后因骨质逐渐破坏而丢失。在ITI组中，3枚种植体在1至3年后出现与种植体周围感染相关的骨质逐渐丧失。在整个研究过程中，所有40副桥体均完好无损且保持稳定。患者总体满意度较高，但约一半的Brånemark患者报告在应对手术过程时有困难。两种系统的治疗时间相似。结论是，两种系统均满足目前牙种植系统在下颌无牙颌治疗中的要求。
