Researcher, School of Dental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
assistant professor, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Feb;15(1):29-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00397.x. Epub 2011 Nov 14.
The aim of this study was to compare endodontic and implant treatments and to evaluate their predictability over an 8-year period on the basis of an analysis of survival data and a retrospective clinical study.
A group of 40 partially edentulous patients were selected for this study. Their teeth had been endodontically treated and rehabilitated using gold alloy and ceramic restorations. In these patients, 65 osseointegrated implants were restored with single gold alloy-ceramic crowns and monitored on a yearly basis for 8 years with standardized periapical radiographs, using a polivynilsiloxane occlusal key as a positioner. A total of nine patients who did not attend the yearly follow-up were excluded from the study. The Melloning and Triplett criteria were used to evaluate the clinical results obtained in the implant sites. The clinical results of the 56 endodontically treated teeth, restored with the fixed prosthesis of 40 patients, were analyzed according to probing depth as well as an assessment of the correct apical and coronal seals. The survival rate was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the statistical significance was calculated using the chi-square test.
During the follow-up of the endodontically treated elements, seven failures were detected (83.34%) and the success rate of implants inserted in the same patients was equal to 80.8%, with nine implants lost in 8 years. The survival analysis of the elements treated with both therapies was not statistically significant (p = .757) and the confidence interval was between 0.2455 and 2.777.
In view of the superimposable results between the two therapies, it should be noted that the endodontically treated teeth could be interested by different pathologies while the restoration of the atrophic edentulous ridge with an implant support is predictable when patients comply with correct oral hygiene and when the occlusal loads are axially distributed in implant-protected occlusion.
本研究旨在比较根管治疗和种植治疗，并通过生存数据分析和回顾性临床研究评估它们在 8 年期间的可预测性。
选择了一组 40 名部分缺牙患者进行本研究。他们的牙齿已接受根管治疗，并使用金合金和陶瓷修复体进行修复。在这些患者中，65 个骨整合种植体用单个金合金-陶瓷冠修复，并使用聚硅氧烷弹性印模材料作为定位器，每年进行一次为期 8 年的标准根尖放射线检查进行监测。共有 9 名未参加每年随访的患者被排除在研究之外。使用 Melloning 和 Triplett 标准评估种植体部位获得的临床结果。根据探查深度以及正确的根尖和冠部密封评估，分析了 40 名患者的 56 颗经根管治疗的牙齿的临床结果。使用 Kaplan-Meier 方法计算生存率，并使用卡方检验计算统计显著性。
在对根管治疗后牙的随访中，发现 7 例（83.34%）失败，同一患者植入的种植体成功率为 80.8%，8 年内有 9 个种植体丢失。两种治疗方法治疗的牙体的生存分析无统计学意义（p=0.757），置信区间为 0.2455 至 2.777。
鉴于两种治疗方法的结果相似，应注意到根管治疗的牙齿可能受到不同疾病的影响，而在患者遵守正确口腔卫生和轴向分布在种植体保护的咬合中的咬合负荷时，用种植体支持修复萎缩性缺牙牙槽嵴是可预测的。
