Engquist Bo, Astrand Per, Dahlgren Simon, Engquist Eva, Feldmann Hartmut, Gröndahl Kerstin
Department of Prosthodontics, Public Dental Health Care, Linköping, Sweden.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Feb;13(1):30-7. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130103.x.
In earlier studies of Astra Tech and Brånemark System implants, high survival rates and small marginal bone changes have been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare the two systems, primarily with regard to marginal bone changes, but also with regard to other clinical variables of interest. The present paper describes the results after three years. Sixty-six patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to treatment with Astra Tech implants (n = 184) or Brånemark System implants (n=187). The marginal bone level was radiographically examined at fixture insertion, at abutment connection, at baseline (delivery of the prosthetic construction) and at 1- and 3-year follow-up examinations. Between fixture insertion and the baseline examination, the pattern of marginal bone resorption differed between the two systems. However, there was no significant marginal bone change between baseline and the 1-year examination or between the 1- and 3-year examinations. Nor were there any differences between the systems. The mean bone loss in the upper jaw between BL (baseline) and 3 years was 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm for Astra Tech implants and 0.2 +/- 0.1 mm for Brånemark System implants. The corresponding figures for the lower jaw were 0.3 +/- 0.2 mm and 0.2 +/- 0.1 mm. The survival rate of Astra Tech implants was significantly higher (98.9%) than for Brånemark System implants (95.2%). However, five of the nine implant losses in the Brånemark group occurred in one patient. For that reason, this result must be interpreted with caution. The number of patients with implant losses did not differ significantly between the systems. Few complications were recorded up to 3 years.
在早期对阿斯特拉泰克（Astra Tech）种植体和布兰纳马克系统（Brånemark System）种植体的研究中，已证实其具有高存留率和微小的边缘骨变化。本研究的目的是比较这两种系统，主要针对边缘骨变化，同时也涉及其他相关临床变量。本文描述了三年后的研究结果。66名患者纳入本研究，并随机分配接受阿斯特拉泰克种植体治疗（n = 184）或布兰纳马克系统种植体治疗（n = 187）。在种植体植入时、基台连接时、基线（修复体交付时）以及1年和3年随访检查时，通过影像学检查边缘骨水平。在种植体植入至基线检查期间，两种系统的边缘骨吸收模式有所不同。然而，在基线至1年检查期间或1年至3年检查期间，边缘骨没有显著变化。两种系统之间也没有差异。阿斯特拉泰克种植体在上颌骨中从基线（BL）到3年的平均骨吸收为0.2±0.3毫米，布兰纳马克系统种植体为0.2±0.1毫米。下颌骨的相应数据分别为0.3±0.2毫米和0.2±0.1毫米。阿斯特拉泰克种植体的存留率显著高于布兰纳马克系统种植体（98.9%比95.2%）。然而，布兰纳马克组的9例种植体脱落中有5例发生在1名患者身上。因此，这一结果必须谨慎解读。两组种植体脱落患者的数量没有显著差异。在3年期间记录到的并发症很少。
