Olate Sergio, Lyrio Mariana Camilo Negreiros, de Moraes Márcio, Mazzonetto Renato, Moreira Roger William Fernandes
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Feb;68(2):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.002.
To relate diameter and length of implants with early implant failure.
Implants with a cylindrical design and surface treatment by removal of titanium via acidification from 3 different manufacturers were used in this study. Two surgical procedures for submerged implants were evaluated--the placement of the implants (first surgical phase) and the procedure for reopening (second surgical phase)--before the installation of the prosthetic system. The length of the implants was classified as short (6-9 mm), medium (10-12 mm), or long (13-18 mm), and the diameter was classified as narrow, regular, or wide. The statistics were computed with SAS statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Step-wise and chi(2) analyses were used, in addition to univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
In this retrospective study, 1,649 implants (807 maxillary and 821 mandibular) were placed in 650 patients (mean age, 42.7 years) in different areas: anterior maxilla (458), posterior maxilla (349), anterior mandible (270), and posterior mandible (551). The early survival rate for all 1,649 implants was 96.2%. Regarding diameter, the largest loss was observed in narrow implants (5.1%), followed by regular (3.8%) and wide (2.7%) implants. Regarding length, the largest loss was observed in short implants (9.9%), followed by long (3.4%) and medium (3.0%) implants. Early loss occurred in 50 implants, 31 (4.3%) of which were installed in anterior areas and 19 (2.8%) in posterior areas. According to step-wise analyses and the chi(2) test, short implant (P = .0018) and anterior installation of implant (P = .0013) showed associations with early loss.
A significant relationship of early implant loss was observed with short implants. No relationships between early loss of implants and the osseous quality or diameter of implants were observed. These findings may be attributed to the operator's experience with different implant designs, learning curves, or changes in technique and indications for the use of short implants from 1996 to 2004.
探讨种植体直径和长度与早期种植失败的关系。
本研究采用了3个不同厂家生产的经酸化去除钛进行表面处理的圆柱形设计种植体。在安装修复系统之前，评估了两种用于潜入式种植体的外科手术——种植体植入（第一手术阶段）和重新切开手术（第二手术阶段）。种植体长度分为短（6 - 9毫米）、中（10 - 12毫米）或长（13 - 18毫米），直径分为窄、常规或宽。使用SAS统计软件（SAS Institute，北卡罗来纳州卡里）进行统计计算。除单因素和多因素逻辑回归分析外，还采用了逐步分析和卡方分析。
在这项回顾性研究中，650例患者（平均年龄42.7岁）在不同区域植入了1649颗种植体（上颌807颗，下颌821颗）：上颌前部（458颗）、上颌后部（349颗）、下颌前部（270颗）和下颌后部（551颗）。1649颗种植体的早期存活率为96.2%。在直径方面，窄种植体的损失最大（5.1%），其次是常规种植体（3.8%）和宽种植体（2.7%）。在长度方面，短种植体的损失最大（9.9%），其次是长种植体（3.4%）和中种植体（3.0%）。50颗种植体出现早期丢失，其中31颗（4.3%）植入在前部区域，19颗（2.8%）植入在后部区域。根据逐步分析和卡方检验，短种植体（P = .0018）和种植体在前部区域植入（P = .0013）与早期丢失有关。
观察到早期种植体丢失与短种植体之间存在显著关系。未观察到种植体早期丢失与种植体骨质质量或直径之间的关系。这些发现可能归因于操作者对不同种植体设计的经验、学习曲线，或1996年至2004年期间短种植体使用技术和适应证的变化。
