Chiapasco Matteo, Casentini Paolo, Zaniboni Marco
Head, Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, A.O. San Paolo, Dental Clinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Private practice, Milan, Italy Unit of Oral Surgery, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, A.O. San Paolo, Dental Clinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Feb;16(1):32-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00457.x. Epub 2012 Apr 11.
To evaluate: (1) the survival rate of Straumann® Tissue Level and Bone Level implants placed in atrophic edentulous jaws previously reconstructed by means of autogenous onlay bone grafts; (2) to compare peri-implant bone resorption values over time.
From 2005 to 2010, 50 patients presenting with vertical or tridimensional defects of the edentulous ridges were treated with autogenous bone grafts. Three to 7 months afterward, 192 implants were placed (Group A: 97 Tissue Level implants; Group B: 95 Bone Level implants) in the reconstructed areas. After a further waiting period of 2 to 3 months, patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 68 months after the start of prosthetic loading (mean: 33 months).
No implants were removed (survival rate: 100%), but in Group B 13 implants (8 placed in iliac grafts, 2 placed in ramus grafts, and 3 placed in calvarial grafts) presented peri-implant bone resorption values higher than those proposed by Albrektsson and colleagues. for successful implants: the overall implant success rate was then 100% for Group A and 86.8% for Group B. No prosthetic failures were recorded, thus leading to a 100% prostheses success rate.
No significant differences were found between the two types of implants as far as implant survival rate is concerned, but results from this study seem to demonstrate that Tissue Level implants may present better long-term results in terms of peri-implant bone maintenance, as compared with Bone Level implants, when placed in reconstructed areas.
评估:(1)植入经自体块状骨移植术先前重建的萎缩无牙颌中的士卓曼软组织水平和骨水平种植体的存活率;(2)比较种植体周围骨吸收值随时间的变化。
2005年至2010年,50例存在无牙颌垂直或三维缺损的患者接受了自体骨移植治疗。3至7个月后,在重建区域植入192枚种植体(A组:97枚软组织水平种植体;B组:95枚骨水平种植体)。在进一步等待2至3个月后,患者接受种植体支持的固定修复体修复。随访时间为修复体加载开始后的12至68个月(平均:33个月)。
无种植体被取出(存活率:100%),但在B组中,13枚种植体(8枚植入髂骨移植处,2枚植入下颌支移植处,3枚植入颅骨移植处)的种植体周围骨吸收值高于阿尔布雷克特松及其同事提出的成功种植体的骨吸收值:A组的总体种植成功率为100%,B组为86.8%。未记录到修复失败情况,因此修复体成功率为100%。
就种植体存活率而言,两种类型的种植体之间未发现显著差异,但本研究结果似乎表明,当植入重建区域时,与骨水平种植体相比,软组织水平种植体在种植体周围骨维持方面可能具有更好的长期效果。