Alsaadi Ghada, Quirynen Marc, van Steenberghe Daniel
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):270-4.
The purpose of the study was to compare the failure rates of implants with either a machined surface or a TiUnite surface used to replace failing implants.
The files of 578 patients, ie, of all patients who were treated at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital in Leuven by means of oral implants during 3 recent consecutive years, were analyzed. The implants included in the study had an observation time ranging from 9 to 49 months. All patients had been provided with Brånemark System implants. Only 2 types of implant surfaces were used: machined and TiUnite. Data collection and analysis focused on the replacement implants, ie, implants placed at sites where the original implants had failed. Data were statistically analyzed by means of Statistica for Windows Software version 5.1; a Fisher exact P test was used. The level of significance was set at P = .05.
A total of 41 patients experienced the nonintegration of 58 implants. Of those, 29 implants with a machined surface were replaced by implants with the same surface. Six of the replacement implants failed. Nineteen machined-surface implants were replaced by TiUnite surface implants; 1 failed. Ten TiUnite-surface implants were replaced by implants with the same surface; none failed. The difference in failure rate between machined-surface replacement implants and TiUnite replacement implants was statistically significant (P = .05).
In addition to the usual patient-related compromising factors, replacement of a failing implant involves the challenge of achieving osseointegration in a nonpristine bone site. In the present study, implants with TiUnite surfaces were associated with fewer failures than machined-surface implants under the same conditions.
An improved implant surface such as TiUnite may offer a better prognosis when a failed implant has to be replaced at the same site.
本研究旨在比较用于替换失败种植体的机械加工表面种植体和钛易耐（TiUnite）表面种植体的失败率。
分析了578例患者的病历，即鲁汶大学医院牙周病科最近连续3年通过口腔种植体治疗的所有患者。纳入研究的种植体观察时间为9至49个月。所有患者均使用了布伦马克（Brånemark）系统种植体。仅使用了2种植体表面类型：机械加工表面和钛易耐表面。数据收集和分析聚焦于替换种植体，即在原种植体失败部位植入的种植体。使用适用于Windows的Statistica软件版本5.1进行统计学分析；采用Fisher精确P检验。显著性水平设定为P = 0.05。
共有41例患者的58颗种植体出现未骨结合情况。其中，29颗机械加工表面的种植体被相同表面的种植体替换。6颗替换种植体失败。19颗机械加工表面的种植体被钛易耐表面种植体替换；1颗失败。10颗钛易耐表面种植体被相同表面的种植体替换；无一失败。机械加工表面替换种植体和钛易耐替换种植体的失败率差异具有统计学意义（P = 0.05）。
除了常见的与患者相关的影响因素外，替换失败的种植体还面临在非原始骨部位实现骨结合的挑战。在本研究中，在相同条件下，钛易耐表面的种植体比机械加工表面的种植体失败情况更少。
当必须在同一部位替换失败的种植体时，诸如钛易耐这样改良的种植体表面可能提供更好的预后。
