Esposito Marco, Pellegrino Gerardo, Pistilli Roberto, Felice Pietro
Department of Biomaterials, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Sweden.
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Spring;4(1):21-30.
To evaluate whether 5 mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with anorganic bovine bone and placement of at least 10 mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws.
Fifteen patients with bilateral atrophic mandibles (5-7 mm bone height above the mandibular canal), and 15 patients with bilateral atrophic maxillae (4-6 mm bone height below the maxillary sinus) and bone thickness of at least 8 mm, were randomised according to a splitmouth design to receive one to three 5 mm short implants or at least 10 mm long implants in augmented bone. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional bone blocks and maxillary sinuses with particulated bone via a lateral window. Implants were placed after 4 months, submerged and loaded, after 4 months, with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive provisionally cemented prostheses were delivered. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
In 5 augmented mandibles, the planned 10 mm long implants could not be placed and shorter implants (7 and 8.5 mm) had to be used instead. One year after loading no patient dropped out. Two long (8.5 mm in the mandible and 13 mm in the maxilla) implants and one 5 mm short maxillary implant failed. There were no statistically significant differences in failures or complications. Patients with short implants lost on average 1 mm of peri-implant bone and patients with longer implants lost 1.2 mm. This difference was statistically significant.
This pilot study suggests that 1 year after loading, 5 mm short implants achieve similar if not better results than longer implants placed in augmented bone. Short implants might be a preferable choice to bone augmentation since the treatment is faster, cheaper and associated with less morbidity, however their long-term prognosis is unknown.
评估5毫米短种植体是否可替代在后部萎缩颌骨中使用无机牛骨进行骨增量并植入至少10毫米长的种植体。
15例双侧下颌骨萎缩患者(下颌管上方骨高度为5 - 7毫米)以及15例双侧上颌骨萎缩患者(上颌窦下方骨高度为4 - 6毫米且骨厚度至少为8毫米),根据分口设计随机分组,在骨增量后接受1至3颗5毫米短种植体或至少10毫米长的种植体。下颌骨通过植入骨块进行垂直骨增量,上颌窦通过外侧窗口用颗粒状骨进行骨增量。4个月后植入种植体,采用潜入式种植,4个月后用临时修复体进行加载。4个月后,交付最终的临时粘结修复体。观察指标包括:修复体和种植体失败情况、任何并发症以及种植体周围边缘骨水平变化。
在5例骨增量的下颌骨中,无法植入计划的10毫米长种植体,不得不改用较短的种植体(7毫米和8.5毫米)。加载1年后无患者退出。两颗长种植体(下颌骨中为8.5毫米,上颌骨中为13毫米)和一颗5毫米短上颌种植体失败。在失败或并发症方面无统计学显著差异。短种植体患者的种植体周围骨平均丧失1毫米,长种植体患者的种植体周围骨丧失1.2毫米。这种差异具有统计学显著性。
这项初步研究表明,加载1年后,5毫米短种植体即使不比植入骨增量后的长种植体效果更好,也能取得相似的结果。短种植体可能是比骨增量更可取的选择,因为治疗更快、更便宜且发病率更低,然而其长期预后尚不清楚。