Watzak Georg, Zechner Werner, Busenlechner Dieter, Arnhart Christof, Gruber Reinhard, Watzek Georg
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb Dental School, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Dec;17(6):651-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01275.x.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare peri-implant bone loss and mucosal conditions around machined-surface (MS) and anodized-surface (AS) interforaminal implants in the mandible at least 30 months after placement. Fifty patients, each treated with four interforaminal screw-type implants consecutively, were included. Thirty-one patients (62%) with a total number of 124 implants (64 MS and 60 AS implants, both Brånemark type MKIII) were available for follow-up. Rotational panoramic radiographs were used for evaluating marginal bone loss. Clinically, marginal plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and pocket probing depth (PPD) were evaluated. AS implants showed significantly less marginal bone loss than MS implants (-1.17+/-0.13 vs. -1.42+/-0.13 mm; P=0.03). Marginal bone loss around distal implants was less pronounced at AS implants (-1.05+/-0.14 mm) when compared with MS implants (-1.46+/-0.14 mm; P=0.05). Within the smoking group, there was less peri-implant bone loss around AS implants than around MS implants (-1.08+/-0.27 vs. -1.83+/-0.2; P=0.04). No differences between MS and AS implants were found with respect to mPI (57% vs. 67%), BOP (21% vs. 17%) and mean PPD (2.59+/-0.29 vs. 2.56+/-0.28 mm). Overall, both types of implants, in combination with bar-supported overdentures, can produce excellent long-term results in the interforaminal edentulous mandible with less peri-implant bone loss around rough implant surfaces, which had beneficial effects at distal implants and in smokers.
本回顾性研究的目的是比较下颌骨孔间种植体植入至少30个月后，机械加工表面（MS）和阳极氧化表面（AS）种植体周围的种植体周围骨丢失和黏膜状况。纳入50例患者，每位患者连续植入4枚孔间螺钉型种植体。31例患者（62%）共124枚种植体（64枚MS种植体和60枚AS种植体，均为Brånemark MKIII型）可供随访。采用曲面体层X线片评估边缘骨丢失。临床评估边缘菌斑指数（mPI）、探诊出血（BOP）和牙周袋探诊深度（PPD）。AS种植体的边缘骨丢失明显少于MS种植体（-1.17±0.13 vs. -1.42±0.13 mm；P=0.03）。与MS种植体（-1.46±0.14 mm）相比，AS种植体远端种植体周围的边缘骨丢失不明显（-1.05±0.14 mm；P=0.05）。在吸烟组中，AS种植体周围的种植体周围骨丢失少于MS种植体周围（-1.08±0.27 vs. -1.83±0.2；P=0.04）。在mPI（57% vs. 67%）、BOP（21% vs. 17%）和平均PPD（2.59±0.29 vs. 2.56±0.28 mm）方面，MS和AS种植体之间未发现差异。总体而言，这两种类型的种植体与杆式覆盖义齿联合使用时，在下颌孔间无牙区均可产生优异的长期效果，粗糙种植体表面周围的种植体周围骨丢失较少，这对远端种植体和吸烟者有有益影响。
