Astrand Per, Engquist Bo, Anzén Bengt, Bergendal Tom, Hallman Mats, Karlsson Ulf, Kvint Sven, Lysell Leif, Rundcrantz Torgil
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(3):115-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00161.x.
Dental implants vary in design and surfaces. In addition, different surgical techniques have been used for implant insertion. The ITI Dental Implant System (Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland) has always required a one-stage technique, whereas the Brånemark System (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) requires a two-stage technique.
The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of fixed partial bridges in the maxilla supported by both ITI and Brånemark implants in a split-mouth design.
Twenty-eight patients with a residual anterior dentition in the maxilla were included in this split-mouth study. The Brånemark implants were used on one side and the ITI implants on the other side of the residual dentition according to a randomization procedure. A blocking size of four was used, giving equal probability of placing ITI or Brånemark implants in the right or left side of the jaw. The surgical and prosthetic procedures followed the guidelines given by the manufacturers. The prosthetic treatment with the two-implant systems was performed at the same time, and for that reason the healing period was 6 months for both systems. The observation period for all patients was 1 year after loading.
Two Brånemark implants (in one patient) were lost before loading, and one ITI implant was lost 1 year after loading. There was no significant difference in survival rate. Radiographic examination of the bone level was performed at the time of delivery of the bridge and after 1 year. The mean marginal bone level at baseline was situated 1.9 mm from the reference point for the Brånemark implants and 1.5 mm for the ITI implants. With regard to the insertion depth used, these bone levels indicate that bone loss had taken place before baseline. However, between baseline and the 1-year examination, there was no significant change of the marginal bone (0.2 +/- 0.08 mm at the Brånemark implants and 0.1 +/- 0.11 mm at the ITI implants). The difference between results with the two implants was not statistically significant. Crater-form bone destructions were seen at some ITI implants, indicating periimplantitis. However, at only two implants were there clinical signs of periimplantitis.
No significant difference in survival rate or in marginal bone change could be demonstrated between the two systems. At some ITI implants (18%), crater-form bone loss was observed.
牙科种植体在设计和表面处理上存在差异。此外，种植体植入采用了不同的外科技术。ITI牙科种植系统（瑞士瓦尔登堡的士卓曼公司）一直采用一期技术，而诺贝尔生物活性公司（瑞典哥德堡）的布伦马克系统则需要二期技术。
本研究旨在通过口内对照设计比较上颌骨中由ITI和布伦马克种植体支持的固定局部义齿桥的效果。
本口内对照研究纳入了28例上颌骨前部牙列缺失的患者。根据随机程序，在剩余牙列的一侧使用布伦马克种植体，另一侧使用ITI种植体。采用4个为一组的区组设计，使ITI或布伦马克种植体植入颌骨右侧或左侧的概率相等。手术和修复程序均遵循制造商提供的指南。两种种植体系统的修复治疗同时进行，因此两种系统的愈合期均为6个月。所有患者在加载后观察1年。
两枚布伦马克种植体（在一名患者中）在加载前丢失，一枚ITI种植体在加载后1年丢失。生存率无显著差异。在义齿桥交付时和1年后进行了骨水平的影像学检查。基线时，布伦马克种植体的平均边缘骨水平距参考点1.9mm，ITI种植体为1.5mm。就所使用的植入深度而言，这些骨水平表明在基线前就已经发生了骨吸收。然而，在基线和1年检查之间，边缘骨没有显著变化（布伦马克种植体为0.2±0.08mm，ITI种植体为0.1±0.11mm）。两种种植体的结果差异无统计学意义。在一些ITI种植体上可见火山口状骨破坏，提示种植体周围炎。然而，只有两枚种植体有种植体周围炎的临床体征。
两种系统在生存率或边缘骨变化方面无显著差异。在一些ITI种植体（18%）上观察到了火山口状骨吸收。
