Al-Nawas B, Hangen U, Duschner H, Krummenauer F, Wagner W
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, J. Gutenberg University Hospital Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, D-55131 Mainz, Germany.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Jun;9(2):71-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00030.x.
Positive effects on the clinical outcome of moderately rough implant surfaces are described. Intercomparison of clinical data, however, is rarely found.
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of two macroscopically identical implants, the one with a turned, machined and the other with an etched surface.
In a retrospective cohort study, the included implants followed the criteria: standard surgical protocol, >12 months in situ; minimally rough self-threading implants with a turned, machined surface (Mk II Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden], n=210); etched implants of the same macrodesign (3i Implant Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA], n=151), length > or = 10 mm. Clinical data and implant success were rated. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest (Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) were measured and related to the corresponding implant survival rate in the respective group.
The total number of implants was 361, of which 264 (73%) were subject to clinical reexamination. RFA and Periotest could be recorded in 25% of the implants. Neither clinically relevant nor statistically significant differences between the surface designs were found in the RFA (64 +/- 8.6 vs 63 +/- 9.7), in Periotest (-2 +/- 3.3 vs -1 +/- 5.1), and in mean survival periods (49 months, 95% confidence interval CI]: 46-51 months, for the turned vs 46 months, 95% CI: 43-49 months, for the double-etched implant). After osteoplastic procedures, a significantly higher rate of implant losses in the turned, machined implant group was observed (17 vs 1) with a mean survival period of 43 (40-46) months for the turned and 46 (45-48) months for the double-etched implants.
No difference between implants with two different minimally rough surfaces was found. A positive effect of surface roughness is observed in poor quality bone, but the pivotal proof of this effect is still lacking.
已报道适度粗糙的种植体表面对临床结果有积极影响。然而，临床数据的相互比较却很少见。
本研究旨在比较两种宏观上相同的种植体的临床结果，一种是经过车削、机械加工的表面，另一种是经过蚀刻的表面。
在一项回顾性队列研究中，纳入的种植体符合以下标准：标准手术方案，在位时间>12个月；具有车削、机械加工表面的微粗糙自攻螺纹种植体（瑞典哥德堡诺贝尔生物公司Mk II型），n = 210；相同宏观设计的蚀刻种植体（美国佛罗里达州棕榈滩花园3i种植体创新公司），n = 151，长度≥10 mm。对临床数据和种植体成功率进行评估。测量共振频率分析（RFA）和牙周探针（德国本斯海姆西门子公司），并将其与各相应组的种植体存活率相关联。
种植体总数为361个，其中264个（73%）接受了临床复查。25%的种植体可记录RFA和牙周探针数据。在RFA（64±8.6对63±9.7）、牙周探针（-2±3.3对-1±5.1）以及平均存活期（49个月，95%置信区间CI：46 - 51个月，车削表面种植体对46个月，95%CI：43 - 49个月，双蚀刻种植体）方面，表面设计之间未发现临床相关或统计学上的显著差异。在进行骨整形手术后，观察到车削、机械加工种植体组的种植体丢失率显著更高（17对1），车削表面种植体的平均存活期为43（40 - 46）个月，双蚀刻种植体为46（45 - 48）个月。
未发现两种不同微粗糙表面的种植体之间存在差异。在骨质质量较差时观察到表面粗糙度有积极作用，但仍缺乏这一作用的关键证据。
