Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Capa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Implant Dent. 2010 Oct;19(5):437-46. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181f57110.
To explore the soft tissue, marginal bone, and prosthetic complications (if any) of Astra Tech, Brånemark, and ITI implants supporting fixed prostheses during an observation period of 2 years.
The study comprised 26 patients, who received 42 Astra Tech, 36 Brånemark, and 29 ITI implants. After 3 months of healing, abutment connections were performed for Astra Tech and Brånemark implants, and fixed prostheses were delivered to the patients at 4 months. At 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year recall appointments, plaque index, periimplant inflammation index, and bleeding index scores, were recorded. The marginal bone levels were also measured at 2-year recall by means of radiographic evaluation, and prosthetic complications were recorded throughout the study.
All implants survived during the 2-year observation period. The plaque index and periimplant inflammation index scores around Brånemark implants were higher than ITI and Astra Tech implants in the first year of function (P > 0.05). Marginal bone loss around ITI and Astra Tech implants was similar at 2 years (P > 0.05). The marginal bone loss around Brånemark implants was higher than Astra Tech implants (P < 0.05) but similar to ITI implants at 2-year recall appointment (P > 0.05). Fixed prostheses supported by ITI and Astra Tech implants did not experience prosthetic complications, and only 1 patient of the Brånemark group had porcelain veneer fracture.
Astra Tech, Brånemark, and ITI implants supporting fixed prostheses had same survival rates (100%) in this study. ITI and Astra Tech implants had similar changes in marginal bone levels, whereas Brånemark implants had higher marginal bone loss, particularly in the first year of function.
探讨在 2 年观察期内，AstraTech、Brånemark 和 ITI 种植体支持固定修复体的软组织、边缘骨和修复体并发症（如有）。
本研究纳入 26 名患者，共植入 42 颗 AstraTech、36 颗 Brånemark 和 29 颗 ITI 种植体。愈合 3 个月后，对 AstraTech 和 Brånemark 种植体进行基台连接，4 个月后向患者交付固定修复体。在 6 个月、1 年和 2 年的随访中，记录菌斑指数、种植体周围炎指数和出血指数评分。在 2 年的随访中，通过放射学评估测量边缘骨水平，并在整个研究过程中记录修复体并发症。
所有种植体在 2 年的观察期内均存活。在功能的第一年，Brånemark 种植体周围的菌斑指数和种植体周围炎指数评分高于 ITI 和 AstraTech 种植体（P > 0.05）。在 2 年时，ITI 和 AstraTech 种植体周围的边缘骨丧失相似（P > 0.05）。Brånemark 种植体周围的边缘骨丧失高于 AstraTech 种植体（P < 0.05），但在 2 年的随访中与 ITI 种植体相似（P > 0.05）。由 ITI 和 AstraTech 种植体支持的固定修复体未发生修复体并发症，仅 1 例 Brånemark 组患者发生烤瓷贴面折裂。
在本研究中，AstraTech、Brånemark 和 ITI 种植体支持的固定修复体具有相同的存活率（100%）。ITI 和 AstraTech 种植体的边缘骨水平变化相似，而 Brånemark 种植体的边缘骨丧失较高，特别是在功能的第一年。
