Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics, and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts-University at Kiel, Germany.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):540-7.
It is unknown whether different microgap configurations can cause different peri-implant bone reactions. Therefore, this study sought to compare the peri-implant bone morphologies of two implant systems with different implant-abutment connections.
Three months after mandibular tooth extractions in six mongrel dogs, two oxidized screw implants with an external-hex connection were inserted (hexed group) on one side, whereas on the contralateral side two grit-blasted screw implants with an internal Morse-taper connection (Morse group) were placed. On each side, one implant was inserted level with the bone (equicrestal) and the second implant was inserted 1.5 mm below the bony crest (subcrestal). Healing abutments were inserted immediately after implant placement. Three months later, the peri-implant bone levels, the first bone-to-implant contact points, and the width and steepness of the peri-implant bone defects were evaluated histometrically.
All 24 implants osseointegrated clinically and histologically. No statistically significant differences between the hexed group and Morse group were detected for either the vertical position for peri-implant bone levels (Morse equicrestal -0.16 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.22 mm, Morse subcrestal 1.50 mm, hexed subcrestal 0.94 mm) or for the first bone-to-implant contact points (Morse equicrestal -2.08 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.98 mm, Morse subcrestal -1.26 mm, hexed subcrestal -0.76 mm). For the parameters width (Morse equicrestal -0.15 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.59 mm, Morse subcrestal 0.28 mm, hexed subcrestal -0.70 mm) and steepness (Morse equicrestal 25.27 degree, hexed equicrestal 57.21 degree, Morse subcrestal 15.35 degree, hexed subcrestal 37.97 degree) of the peri-implant defect, highly significant differences were noted between the Morse group and the hexed group.
Within the limits of this experiment, it can be concluded that different microgap configurations influence the size and shape of the peri-implant bone defect in nonsubmerged implants placed both at the crest and subcrestally.
不同的微间隙构型是否会导致不同的种植体周围骨反应尚不清楚。因此,本研究旨在比较两种种植体-基台连接方式不同的种植系统的种植体周围骨形态。
在 6 只杂种犬下颌牙拔除 3 个月后,在一侧分别植入 2 个外六方连接的氧化钛种植体(hexed 组),而在对侧则分别植入 2 个内八角连接的喷砂钛种植体(Morse 组)。每侧植入 1 个平齐牙槽嵴的种植体(平齐组)和 1 个植入骨下 1.5mm 的种植体(骨下组)。植入后立即插入愈合基台。3 个月后,通过组织学评估测量种植体周围骨水平、第一骨-种植体接触点以及种植体周围骨缺损的宽度和陡峭度。
所有 24 个种植体均在临床和组织学上实现了骨整合。在种植体周围骨水平的垂直位置(Morse 平齐组为-0.16mm,hexed 平齐组为-0.22mm,Morse 骨下组为 1.50mm,hexed 骨下组为 0.94mm)或第一骨-种植体接触点(Morse 平齐组为-2.08mm,hexed 平齐组为-0.98mm,Morse 骨下组为-1.26mm,hexed 骨下组为-0.76mm)方面,hexed 组和 Morse 组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。对于参数宽度(Morse 平齐组为-0.15mm,hexed 平齐组为-0.59mm,Morse 骨下组为 0.28mm,hexed 骨下组为-0.70mm)和陡峭度(Morse 平齐组为 25.27 度,hexed 平齐组为 57.21 度,Morse 骨下组为 15.35 度,hexed 骨下组为 37.97 度),Morse 组和 hexed 组之间存在显著差异。
在本实验范围内,可以得出结论,不同的微间隙构型会影响非潜入式种植体在牙槽嵴顶和牙槽嵴下植入时种植体周围骨缺损的大小和形状。