Vigolo Paolo, Givani Andrea
Department of Clinical Odontostomatology, University of Padua, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Padua, Italy.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):103-9.
The purpose of the present investigation was to clinically assess and compare crestal bone changes, over a 5-year period, around external-hexagon wide-diameter implants restored with either matching wide-diameter prosthetic components or with platform-switched prosthetic components.
During the years 2000 to 2002 all patients who received a single 5-mm-diameter implant with an external hexagon in a private office setting were included in this study. All implants were placed in the posterior areas of the jaws. Maxillary left molars (group A1) and mandibular right molars (group A2) were restored with matching wide-diameter prosthetic components; maxillary right molars (group B1) and mandibular left molars (group B2) were restored with platform-switched prosthetic components. Marginal bone resorption was measured via intraoral radiographs each year after abutment and crown insertion. Statistical analyses were used to determine whether there was a significant difference in marginal bone levels with respect to the width of prosthetic components used.
In all, 182 single 5-mm-diameter implants were placed in 144 patients and all implants survived. Eighty-five implants were restored with matching wide-diameter prosthetic components (group A), and 97 implants were restored with platform-switched prosthetic components (group B). A significant difference in marginal bone levels was found between group A and group B implants after 1 year. The mean marginal bone resorption was 0.9 mm (SD 0.3 mm) for group A implants and 0.6 mm (SD 0.2 mm) for group B implants. Marginal bone resorption observed at the second, third, fourth, and fifth years after abutment and crown insertion did not show any significant change.
Statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss were observed between study groups. The 85 implants restored with matching wide-diameter prosthetic components showed more bone loss than the 97 implants restored with platform-switched prosthetic components.
本研究的目的是在临床评估并比较在5年时间里，使用匹配的大直径修复部件或平台转换修复部件修复的外六角大直径种植体周围的嵴顶骨变化。
在2000年至2002年期间，所有在私人诊所接受单个5毫米直径外六角种植体的患者均纳入本研究。所有种植体均植入颌骨后部区域。上颌左侧磨牙（A1组）和下颌右侧磨牙（A2组）用匹配的大直径修复部件修复；上颌右侧磨牙（B1组）和下颌左侧磨牙（B2组）用平台转换修复部件修复。在基台和牙冠植入后，每年通过口腔内X光片测量边缘骨吸收情况。采用统计分析来确定所使用修复部件的宽度在边缘骨水平上是否存在显著差异。
总共144例患者植入了182颗单个5毫米直径的种植体，所有种植体均存活。85颗种植体用匹配的大直径修复部件修复（A组），97颗种植体用平台转换修复部件修复（B组）。1年后，A组和B组种植体的边缘骨水平存在显著差异。A组种植体的平均边缘骨吸收为0.9毫米（标准差0.3毫米），B组种植体为0.6毫米（标准差0.2毫米）。在基台和牙冠植入后的第二、第三、第四和第五年观察到的边缘骨吸收没有显示出任何显著变化。
研究组之间在边缘骨丢失方面观察到统计学上的显著差异。用匹配的大直径修复部件修复的85颗种植体比用平台转换修复部件修复的97颗种植体显示出更多的骨丢失。
