Ravald Nils, Dahlgren Simon, Teiwik Anders, Gröndahl Kerstin
Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Centre for Oral Rehabilitation, Public Dental Service of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Oct;24(10):1144-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02524.x. Epub 2012 Jul 4.
To study the long-term outcome of implant survival rate, soft and hard tissue conditions and prosthetic status in a group of individuals treated with either Astra Tech TiOblast or Brånemark turned implants supporting a full-arch bridge.
Edentulous patients treated with either Astra Tech TiOblast surface or Brånemark turned implants were recalled for examination after 12-15 years. Out of initially 66 patients 46 were available for examination. Intra-oral radiographs were taken for bone level assessments. Clinical prosthetic conditions, number of surviving implants, implant stability, plaque scores, probing pocket depths, bleeding and pus after probing were recorded. Analyses of bone level changes during the total observation period were performed.
Three patients in the Astra Tech group lost totally eight implants and five patients in the Brånemark group lost 10 implants during the total observation period. No statistically significant difference in implant loss or bone level change was found. Sixteen per cent of Astra Tech and 29% of Brånemark patients showed at least one implant with ≥2 mm bone loss after the first year in function. The corresponding prevalence on implant level was 6% and 5% respectively. No significant differences were found between the other examined variables. Two patients showed prosthetic complications of the supra construction in need of repair. Seven bridges had minor ceramic chippings.
Treatment with Astra Tech TiOblast implants and Brånemark turned implants supporting full-arch bridges showed generally good clinical results with low numbers of implants with marginal bone loss indicative of peri-implantitis. No significant differences were found between the implant systems after 12-15 years in function.
研究一组接受Astra Tech TiOblast种植体或Brånemark机械加工种植体支持全口桥修复治疗的患者的种植体长期存留率、软硬组织状况及修复体状态。
对接受Astra Tech TiOblast表面处理种植体或Brånemark机械加工种植体治疗的无牙颌患者在12至15年后进行复查。最初的66例患者中，46例可供检查。拍摄口内X光片以评估骨水平。记录临床修复状况、存留种植体数量、种植体稳定性、菌斑评分、探诊袋深度、探诊后出血及溢脓情况。对整个观察期内的骨水平变化进行分析。
在整个观察期内，Astra Tech组有3例患者共丢失8枚种植体，Brånemark组有5例患者共丢失10枚种植体。种植体丢失或骨水平变化方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。在功能使用第一年之后，16%的Astra Tech患者和29%的Brånemark患者至少有一枚种植体出现≥2 mm的骨吸收。在种植体水平上，相应的发生率分别为6%和5%。在其他检查变量之间未发现显著差异。2例患者出现上部结构的修复性并发症。7座桥有轻微的陶瓷崩裂。
采用Astra Tech TiOblast种植体和Brånemark机械加工种植体支持全口桥修复治疗总体临床效果良好，边缘骨吸收的种植体数量较少，提示种植体周围炎。在功能使用12至15年后，两种种植系统之间未发现显著差异。
Zotero 插件