Section of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University Health Sciences Center, Columbus, Ohio 43218-2357, USA.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Sep-Oct;24(5):910-9.
To evaluate the effects of implant geometry and collar macrostructure and microstructure on crestal bone height, mobility values, and attachment levels using two different types of radiographic analysis.
Subjects included in this study were those who had single-tooth implants restored in the maxillary esthetic zone. Bone levels were measured from the implant-abutment (IA) interface on standardized radiographs at baseline and after 5 years using digital and standard methods. The digital method converted the radiographs into three-dimensional models based on radiodensity so that bone levels could be measured. Clinical attachment levels and Periotest values were recorded and all data were analyzed statistically.
The bone position from the IA interface for the rough-collar implant group was a mean of -0.61 +/- 0.08 mm and it was -1.55 +/- 0.10 mm for the smooth-collar implant group (-1.96 +/- 0.16 mm for implants with a stepped collar and -0.85 +/- 0.19 mm for implants with a straight collar). The mean bone level change over the 5-year period for the rough implants was -0.19 +/- 0.09 mm and it was -0.36 +/- 0.06 mm for the smooth implants. The crestal bone position relative to the implant at the time of surgery influenced mean bone level changes significantly. There were statistically significant differences in clinical attachment levels depending on implant location and on implant group and length.
Implants with straight collars had less bone loss at the 5-year interval than implants with stepped collars. Bone level changes were greater when the implant was placed further subcrestal. The digitally converted radiographic method was significantly more precise for evaluating changes in bone levels. These findings suggest that implant geometry and implant surface roughness may play a significant role in bone level changes in the esthetic zone.
使用两种不同的放射分析方法,评估种植体几何形状和颈圈宏观结构和微观结构对嵴顶骨高度、活动度值和附着水平的影响。
本研究纳入了上颌美学区单牙种植修复的患者。在基线和 5 年后,使用数字和标准方法,从种植体-基台(IA)界面测量标准放射片中的骨水平。数字方法基于放射密度将放射图像转换为三维模型,以便测量骨水平。记录临床附着水平和 Periotest 值,并对所有数据进行统计学分析。
粗糙颈圈种植体组从 IA 界面的骨位置平均为-0.61±0.08mm,光滑颈圈种植体组为-1.55±0.10mm(带台阶颈圈的种植体为-1.96±0.16mm,带直颈圈的种植体为-0.85±0.19mm)。在 5 年期间,粗糙种植体的平均骨水平变化为-0.19±0.09mm,光滑种植体为-0.36±0.06mm。手术时种植体相对于种植体的嵴顶骨位置显著影响平均骨水平变化。种植体位置、种植体组和长度对临床附着水平有统计学差异。
在 5 年间隔内,带直颈圈的种植体比带台阶颈圈的种植体骨丢失少。当种植体置于更深的骨下时,骨水平变化更大。数字转换的放射方法对评估骨水平变化明显更精确。这些发现表明,种植体几何形状和种植体表面粗糙度可能在美学区的骨水平变化中起重要作用。