Department of Periodontology, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23(10):1147-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02298.x. Epub 2011 Sep 15.
To evaluate and compare the effect of the coronal thread size on the marginal bone loss around the fixtures, when both implants were provided with threads to the top of fixture.
Two groups of implants, one with a macro-thread to the top of the fixture (A) and the other with a micro-thread to the top of the fixture (B), were placed adjacent to each other in the partially edentulous areas of 20 patients. Bone loss around each implant was analyzed after 1 year of functional loading. The bone losses after loading were compared using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.
The mean marginal bone losses (A, 0.154 ± 0.144 mm; B, 0.125 ± 0.136 mm) were not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.669).
There was no significant difference between implant with macro- and micro-neck thread in terms of marginal bone loss after 1 year of loading.
评估并比较在种植体颈部均到达修复体顶端时，不同的螺纹设计对基台周围边缘骨吸收的影响。
将两组种植体，一组为顶端为大螺纹（A 组），另一组为顶端为小螺纹（B 组），分别植入 20 名患者的部分缺牙区，相邻放置。在功能负重 1 年后，分析每个种植体周围的骨吸收情况。采用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较加载后骨吸收的差异。
两组的平均边缘骨吸收量（A 组：0.154±0.144mm；B 组：0.125±0.136mm）无统计学差异（P=0.669）。
在 1 年的负重后，大螺纹和小螺纹种植体在边缘骨吸收方面没有显著差异。
