下颌覆盖义齿种植系统的比较
[Comparison of dental implant systems for mandibular overdentures].
作者信息
Geertman M E, Boerrigter E M, van Waas M A, van Oort R P, van 't Hof M A, Kwakman J M, Boering G, Kalk W
机构信息
Sector Orale Functieleen, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen.
出版信息
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1998 Dec;105(12):447-50.
OBJECTIVE
To compare three implant systems in patients with severely resorbed mandibles 1 year after insertion of the mandibular denture.
DESIGN
A prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial.
SETTING
Centers at University of Nijmegen and Groningen.
METHODS
Three different implant systems were used: the transmandibular implant, the IMZ and the Brånemark system. Treatment was assigned to 88 patients according to a balanced allocation method. Evaluation included clinical and radiographic parameters. A Clinical Implant Performance scale (CIP) was constructed based on all conceivable complications of the different implant systems.
RESULTS
During the healing period 1 IMZ- and 1 BRA-implant were lost. One TMI was removed after functional loading. The results of the clinical and radiographic parameters and the CIP-scale showed no significant differences between the three implant systems.
CONCLUSION
Taking the one year evaluation into account the three systems used did not differ in clinical and radiographic performance.
目的
比较三种种植系统在下颌义齿植入1年后严重吸收的下颌骨患者中的应用情况。
设计
一项前瞻性多中心随机临床试验。
地点
奈梅亨大学和格罗宁根大学的研究中心。
方法
使用三种不同的种植系统：经下颌种植体、IMZ种植体和布伦马克系统。根据均衡分配方法将治疗分配给88例患者。评估包括临床和影像学参数。基于不同种植系统所有可能的并发症构建了临床种植体性能量表（CIP）。
结果
在愈合期，1枚IMZ种植体和1枚BRA种植体丢失。1枚经下颌种植体在功能加载后被取出。临床和影像学参数以及CIP量表的结果显示，三种种植系统之间无显著差异。
结论
考虑到一年的评估结果，所使用的三种系统在临床和影像学表现上没有差异。
Zotero 插件