Al-Nawas B, Wegener J, Bender C, Wagner W
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, Mainz, Germany.
J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Jul;31(7):497-500. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00505.x.
Zygomatic implants have been introduced for the rehabilitation of patients with severe bone defects of the maxilla. The soft tissue aspects of the palatal emergence situation have not been described yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and clinical impact of possible periimplant alterations of zygomatic implants.
From 1998 to 2001 all patients with zygomatic implants were included into this study (24 patients, 37 zygomatic implants). One implant was lost in the loading phase giving a survival rate of 97%. Fourteen patients with 20 zygomatic implants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were all available for the recall examination. Thirteen zygomatic implants were inserted in cases of severe maxillary atrophy, seven in cases of tumour-resection of the maxilla. Clinical examination and microbial analysis using a DNA probe was performed. The implants had a mean time in situ of 598 days (min: 326, max: 914).
Colonisation with periodontal pathogens was found at four of the 20 implants. A positive microbiologic result of the periimplant pocket and the maximum pocket probing depth were not statistically related. Nine of the 20 implants showed bleeding on probing, four of these had positive microbiologic results. At sites without bleeding on probing only negative microbiologic samples were found (p=0.026). The mean palatal and mesial probing depth was 1 mm deeper than at the vestibular and distal aspect. Thus at nine out of the 20 implants both, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth >/=5 mm indicated soft tissue problems resulting in a success rate of only 55%. The patient's history (tumor versus atrophy) or smoking habits seemed not to have influence the situation.
These soft tissue problems should be taken into account if zygomatic implants are considered as an alternative therapy option in the maxilla.
颧骨种植体已被用于上颌骨严重骨缺损患者的修复。腭部穿出情况的软组织方面尚未见描述。本研究的目的是评估颧骨种植体周围可能出现的种植体周围改变的发生率及其临床影响。
1998年至2001年,所有接受颧骨种植体的患者纳入本研究(24例患者,37枚颧骨种植体)。1枚种植体在加载阶段丢失,生存率为97%。14例患者的20枚颧骨种植体符合纳入标准,均可供复诊检查。13枚颧骨种植体用于严重上颌骨萎缩病例,7枚用于上颌骨肿瘤切除病例。进行了临床检查和使用DNA探针的微生物分析。种植体在位平均时间为598天(最短:326天,最长:914天)。
20枚种植体中有4枚发现有牙周病原体定植。种植体周围袋的微生物学阳性结果与最大袋探诊深度无统计学相关性。20枚种植体中有9枚探诊时出血,其中4枚微生物学结果为阳性。在探诊无出血的部位仅发现微生物学阴性样本(p=0.026)。腭侧和近中探诊深度平均比前庭侧和远中侧深1mm。因此,20枚种植体中有9枚探诊出血且袋探诊深度≥5mm提示软组织问题,成功率仅为55%。患者的病史(肿瘤与萎缩)或吸烟习惯似乎对情况没有影响。
如果考虑将颧骨种植体作为上颌骨的替代治疗选择,应考虑这些软组织问题。