Meijndert L, Raghoebar G M, Meijer H J A, Vissink A
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Dec;19(12):1295-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01523.x.
To assess in a randomized-clinical trial the influence of three augmentation techniques (chinbone with or without a Bio-Gide membrane and Bio-Oss with a Bio-Gide membrane) on the clinical and radiographic characteristics of hard and soft tissues around implants and adjacent teeth in the reconstructed maxillary anterior region, up to 1 year after functional loading.
Ninety-three patients requesting single-tooth replacement and presenting with a horizontal (bucco-palatinal) bone deficiency were included. After augmentation, 93 ITI-Esthetic(Plus) implants were placed. Clinical variables, standardized photographs and radiographs were analysed to assess the impact on the levels of the marginal gingiva (MGL) and marginal bone (MBL) around implants and adjacent teeth, viz at pre-augmentation, pre-implantation (TPI) and 1 (T(1)) and 12 (T(12)) months after final crown placement.
Implant survival was 97.8%. No significant differences were observed in the treatment outcomes of the three augmentation modalities. Combining the three modalities, a slight but significant increase in the implants approximal pocket depth was found between T(1) and T(12). Approximal bone loss at the implant between T(1) and T(12) was 0.14 +/- 0.76 mm (mesial) and 0.14 +/- 0.47 mm (distal); the approximal MGL slightly increased (mesial: 0.24 +/- 0.46 mm, distal: 0.25 +/- 0.66 mm), and the buccal MGL decreased (0.11 +/- 0.61 mm). Bone loss at the adjacent teeth, although minor, was significant between TPI and T(1). No correlations were observed in changes of MBL and MGL.
None of the three applied augmentation technique procedures influenced the characteristics of the MGL and MBL or the implant survival of single-tooth replacements. Peri-implant hard and soft tissues were very stable in the first year after loading.
在一项随机临床试验中，评估三种骨增量技术（带或不带Bio - Gide膜的颏骨以及带Bio - Gide膜的Bio - Oss）对功能负载后长达1年的上颌前部重建区域种植体及相邻牙齿周围软硬组织的临床和影像学特征的影响。
纳入93例要求单颗牙置换且存在水平（颊 - 腭侧）骨缺损的患者。骨增量后，植入93颗ITI - Esthetic（Plus）种植体。分析临床变量、标准化照片和X线片，以评估对种植体及相邻牙齿周围边缘龈（MGL）和边缘骨（MBL）水平的影响，即在骨增量前、种植前（TPI）以及最终冠修复后1个月（T(1)）和12个月（T(12)）时的情况。
种植体存留率为97.8%。三种骨增量方式的治疗结果未观察到显著差异。综合三种方式，在T(1)和T(12)之间发现种植体邻面袋深度有轻微但显著的增加。T(1)和T(12)之间种植体邻面骨吸收为近中0.14±0.76mm，远中0.14±0.47mm；邻面MGL略有增加（近中：0.24±0.46mm，远中：0.25±0.66mm），颊侧MGL降低（0.11±0.61mm）。相邻牙齿的骨吸收虽然轻微，但在TPI和T(1)之间有显著差异。未观察到MBL和MGL变化之间的相关性。
三种应用的骨增量技术程序均未影响MGL和MBL的特征或单颗牙置换种植体的存留率。种植体周围软硬组织在负载后的第一年非常稳定。
