Eliasson Alf, Blomqvist Fredrik, Wennerberg Ann, Johansson Anders
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Postgraduate Dental Education Center, Orebro, Sweden.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009 Jun;11(2):134-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00099.x. Epub 2008 Apr 1.
Early loading of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous mandible is widely accepted, but do the clinical results replicate those of delayed loading?
The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction with early or delayed loading in patients treated with fixed prostheses, using three different implant systems.
One hundred and nine consecutively treated patients received 490 implants supporting fixed prostheses; 82 patients with Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden), 16 with Astra Tech implants (Astra Tech AB Dental Implant system, Mölndal, Sweden), and 11 with ITI MonoType implants (ITI Dental Implant System, Institute Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland). Prostheses were placed within 2 to 3 weeks in 55 patients; 54 patients underwent a two-stage procedure. Data were collected from patient records and radiographs; 83 patients attended a clinical examination and received a questionnaire.
All patients had fixed prostheses at follow-up with a mean observation time of 3.5 years. Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) were 92.5% of prostheses and 94.4% of implants for early loading, and 98.0 and 97.9% for delayed loading. The mean radiographic bone loss after the first year was small, and at 5 years less than 0.2 mm for both groups. With early loading, significantly more prostheses (p < .05) needed adjustment or replacement.
Statistically significantly more prostheses needed adjustment or replacement in the early group. The present study suggested lower CSRs for prostheses and implants in the early loading group after 5 years; the difference was not statistically significant. Larger study samples are needed to verify statistically small differences between treatment techniques.
在下颌无牙区早期加载种植体支持的修复体已被广泛接受,但临床结果能否复制延期加载的结果呢?
本研究的目的是使用三种不同的种植系统,评估接受固定修复体治疗的患者早期或延期加载的临床结果和患者满意度。
109例连续接受治疗的患者接受了490枚支持固定修复体的种植体;82例患者使用Brånemark系统种植体(诺贝尔生物保健公司,瑞典哥德堡),16例使用Astra Tech种植体(Astra Tech AB牙科种植系统,瑞典默恩达尔),11例使用ITI MonoType种植体(ITI牙科种植系统,瑞士施特劳曼研究所,瓦尔登堡)。55例患者在2至3周内植入修复体;54例患者接受两阶段手术。从患者记录和X光片中收集数据;83例患者接受了临床检查并填写了问卷。
所有患者在随访时均有固定修复体,平均观察时间为3.5年。早期加载组修复体的累积生存率(CSR)为92.5%,种植体为94.4%;延期加载组分别为98.0%和97.9%。第一年后的平均影像学骨吸收量较小,两组在5年时均小于0.2mm。早期加载组需要调整或更换的修复体明显更多(p < 0.05)。
早期组中需要调整或更换的修复体在统计学上明显更多。本研究表明,5年后早期加载组修复体和种植体的CSR较低;差异无统计学意义。需要更大的研究样本量来验证不同治疗技术之间在统计学上的微小差异。