Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Science, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009 Dec;11(4):303-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00120.x. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
Long-term data comparing cemented and noncemented single-implant restorations has not been reported.
To compare clinical and radiographic performance of single-implant crown restorations made by either directly baked porcelain to custom-made TiAdapt titanium abutments (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) (test) or cement crowns onto CeraOne (Nobel Biocare AB) abutments (control) after 10 years in function.
Altogether, 35 consecutive patients were provided with 41 turned single Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB) in the partially edentulous upper jaw. By random, 15 and 20 patients were provided with 18 test and 23 control implant crowns, respectively. Thereafter, clinical and radiographic data were collected and compared between the two groups.
None of the implants were found loose during the follow-up period (100%). Few clinical problems were observed, and the overall average marginal bone loss was 0.26 mm (SD 0.64) during 10 years in function. After the final tightening of the crowns, no significant differences were observed between the test and control groups (p > .05). The head of the implants was placed on an average 6.3 mm (SD 2.24) below the cement/enamel junction of the adjacent teeth (range 2.5-10.0 mm). Implants with reported mechanical and/or mucosal problems or placed more apically in relation to the adjacent teeth did not present more bone loss as compared with implants with no problems or placed more coronally, respectively (p > .05).
There seems to be no obvious clinical or radiographic differences between the test and control single-implant restorations during 10 years of follow-up. Occasionally, some restorations presented loose abutment screws and/or fistulas during follow-up. This implies a certain need for maintenance where a one-piece single-implant protocol (test) allows both for a simple clinical procedure at placement without cementation problems, as well as for an easy and simple maintenance of installed single implant crowns in long-term function.
目前尚未有关于比较骨水泥固定与非骨水泥固定的单种植体修复体的长期数据。
比较 10 年临床和影像学表现,比较采用直接热压铸瓷工艺制作的单冠修复体与定制 TiAdapt 钛基台(瑞典哥德堡 Nobel Biocare AB)(实验组)和使用 CeraOne 基底冠(瑞典哥德堡 Nobel Biocare AB)粘结冠(对照组)的单种植体修复体的临床和影像学性能。
共纳入 35 例上颌牙列缺损患者,植入 41 枚种植体。其中 15 例患者植入 18 枚实验组种植体,20 例患者植入 23 枚对照组种植体。然后收集两组患者的临床和影像学数据,并进行比较。
在整个随访期间(10 年),没有种植体出现松动(100%)。仅观察到少数临床问题,10 年时平均边缘骨吸收量为 0.26mm(SD 0.64)。最终拧紧冠后,实验组和对照组之间无显著差异(p>.05)。种植体的头部平均位于邻牙釉牙骨质界下方 6.3mm(SD 2.24)(范围 2.5-10.0mm)。与无问题或放置在更冠方的种植体相比,报告有机械或黏膜问题或放置在更根尖位置的种植体的骨吸收量无显著差异(p>.05)。
在 10 年的随访中,实验组和对照组的单种植体修复体在临床和影像学方面似乎没有明显差异。偶尔,一些修复体在随访过程中出现基台螺丝松动和/或瘘管。这意味着需要进行一定的维护,其中单一体位种植体方案(实验组)允许在放置时进行简单的临床操作,而无需粘结问题,同时在长期功能中也可以方便地进行简单维护。