Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Nov;22(11):1289-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02109.x. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
To compare single implants in the aesthetic zone with different neck designs for marginal bone-level changes and clinical outcome measures.
Ninety-three patients with a missing anterior tooth in the maxilla were randomly assigned to be treated with an implant with a 1.5 mm smooth neck ("smooth group"), a moderately rough neck with grooves ("rough group") or a scalloped moderately rough neck with grooves ("scalloped-group"). Implants were installed in healed sites and were loaded after 3 months. Follow-up visits were conducted at 6 and 18 months after implant placement.
The scalloped group showed significantly more radiographic bone loss from implant placement to 18 months (2.01 ± 0.77 mm) compared with the smooth group (1.19 ± 0.82 mm) and rough group (0.9 ± 0.57 mm). Furthermore the scalloped group showed significantly deeper pocket depths and a higher bleeding score. There were no between-group differences in soft tissue levels. Survival rates were 97% for the smooth group and 100% for the rough and scalloped groups (P>0.05). No significant differences in outcome were found between the smooth group and rough group.
For anterior tooth replacements, implants with a scalloped neck showed more marginal bone loss and less favourable clinical outcome compared with implants with a 1.5 mm smooth neck or implants with a rough neck.
比较不同颈部设计的单种植体在前美学区的边缘骨水平变化和临床结果测量值。
93 名上颌缺失前牙的患者被随机分为三组，分别接受颈部 1.5mm 光滑设计（“光滑组”）、带有凹槽的中度粗糙颈部设计（“粗糙组”）或带有凹槽的扇贝形中度粗糙颈部设计（“扇贝组”）的种植体治疗。种植体在愈合的部位植入，并在 3 个月后进行负载。在种植体植入后 6 个月和 18 个月进行随访。
与光滑组（1.19 ± 0.82mm）和粗糙组（0.9 ± 0.57mm）相比，扇贝组在从种植体植入到 18 个月时显示出明显更多的放射学骨丢失（2.01 ± 0.77mm）。此外，扇贝组的探诊深度更深，出血评分更高。软组织水平在各组之间无差异。光滑组的生存率为 97%，粗糙组和扇贝组的生存率均为 100%（P>0.05）。光滑组和粗糙组之间的结果无显著差异。
在前牙修复中，与 1.5mm 光滑颈部种植体或粗糙颈部种植体相比，扇贝形颈部种植体的边缘骨吸收更多，临床结果更差。
