Jung Ui-Won, Choi Jung-Yoo, Kim Chang-Sung, Cho Kyoo-Sung, Chai Jung-Kiu, Kim Chong-Kwan, Choi Seong-Ho
Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
J Periodontol. 2008 Oct;79(10):1857-63. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070632.
Anatomic and biomechanical limitations can jeopardize successful single implantation in the mandibular posterior area. To overcome the limitations, the design and the surface of the fixtures were modified. This study evaluated the cumulative survival rate (CSR) of mandibular molars replaced with a sand-blasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) single implant or an anodized (ANO) single implant and examined associated factors, such as the surface treatment, position, and length and diameter of the implants.
One hundred ninety-three single implants restored with an SLA implant and 112 single implants restored with an ANO implant in the mandibular molar area were selected from subjects who had visited the Department of Periodontology, Dental Hospital of Yonsei University, from March 2001 through June 2006. In the SLA group, 123 and 70 implants were placed in the first and second molar area, respectively. In the ANO group, 55 and 57 implants were placed in the first and second molar area, respectively. The 1- to 6-year CSR of the SLA and ANO groups was calculated using the life-table analysis. In addition, associated factors, such as the surface treatment, position, and length and diameter of the implants, were compared and analyzed using the chi(2) test (P <0.05).
Two of 193 implants in the SLA group failed, giving a CSR of 98.96%; four of 112 ANO implants failed, giving a CSR of 96.43%. There were no significant differences with regard to the surface treatment, position, and length and diameter of the implants.
Despite the anatomic and biomechanical limitation in the mandibular posterior area, mandibular posterior single implants showed a high CSR during the observation period. Mandibular posterior single implants can be an effective and reliable treatment modality that is not affected by the surface treatment, position, or length and diameter of the implant.
解剖学和生物力学限制可能危及下颌后牙区单颗种植的成功。为克服这些限制，对种植体的设计和表面进行了改良。本研究评估了用喷砂、大颗粒、酸蚀（SLA）单颗种植体或阳极氧化（ANO）单颗种植体替代下颌磨牙后的累积留存率（CSR），并研究了相关因素，如表面处理、种植体位置、长度和直径。
从2001年3月至2006年6月就诊于延世大学牙科学院牙周病科的患者中，选取193颗用SLA种植体修复的单颗种植体和112颗用ANO种植体修复的下颌磨牙区单颗种植体。在SLA组中，分别有123颗和70颗种植体植入第一磨牙区和第二磨牙区。在ANO组中，分别有55颗和57颗种植体植入第一磨牙区和第二磨牙区。采用寿命表分析法计算SLA组和ANO组1至6年的CSR。此外，使用卡方检验（P<0.05）对表面处理、种植体位置、长度和直径等相关因素进行比较和分析。
SLA组193颗种植体中有2颗失败，CSR为98.96%；ANO组112颗种植体中有4颗失败，CSR为96.43%。在种植体的表面处理、位置、长度和直径方面无显著差异。
尽管下颌后牙区存在解剖学和生物力学限制，但下颌后牙单颗种植体在观察期内显示出较高的CSR。下颌后牙单颗种植体可以是一种有效且可靠的治疗方式，不受种植体表面处理、位置或长度和直径的影响。
