Peñarrocha-Diago M A, Flichy-Fernández A J, Alonso-González R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez J, Peñarrocha-Diago M
Oral Surgery and Implantology, Valencia University Medical and Dental School, Valencia, Spain.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Nov;24(11):1192-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
To carry out a comparative study of two implants with different neck features and prostheses platform connection (machined with external connection and rough-surfaced with switching platform) upon peri-implant marginal bone loss, before and after functional loading.
A randomized, prospective radiological study was made. Eighteen totally edentulous patients were selected. Subjects were divided into two groups according to the type of implant neck used: (a) Osseous(®), with machined surface, without microthreads, external connection, and without platform switching; and (b) Inhex(®), with treated surface, microthreads, internal connection, and platform switching. Mesial and distal marginal bone loss was measured. Implant success was assessed according to the criteria of Buser. Control timepoints were as follows: (a) at implant placement; (b) at prosthesis placement; (c) 6 months after loading; (d) 12 months after loading.
Fifteen patients that received 120 dental implants were included: 47% Osseous(®) group and 53% Inhex(®) group. Global mean marginal bone loss with Osseous(®) was 0.27 ± 0.43 mm and 0.38 ± 0.51 mm as determined 6 and 12 months after prosthetic loading, respectively, whereas in the case of Inhex(®) was 0.07 ± 0.13 and 0.12 ± 0.17 mm. These differences were statistically significant (P = 0.047). Difference between Osseous(®) and Inhex(®) in maxilla (P = 0.272) and mandibular (P = 0.462) bone loss were not statistically significant.
Bone loss after 6 and 12 months proved statistically significant between two groups, with comparatively greater loss in the case of Osseous(®) implants vs. Inhex(®) implants. Regardless the heterogeneity of the two groups (neck shape, microthreads, surface texture), the implant-abutment connection appears to be a significant factor on peri-implant crestal bone levels. Anyway, in both groups, the values obtained were within normal ranges described in the literature.
对两种具有不同颈部特征和假体平台连接方式（机械加工外部连接和带转换平台的粗糙表面）的种植体在功能加载前后的种植体周围边缘骨丢失情况进行对比研究。
进行了一项随机、前瞻性放射学研究。选取18例全口无牙患者。根据所使用种植体颈部的类型将受试者分为两组：（a）Osseous（®），表面机械加工，无微螺纹，外部连接，无平台转换；（b）Inhex（®），表面经过处理，有微螺纹，内部连接，有平台转换。测量近中及远中边缘骨丢失情况。根据Buser标准评估种植体成功率。对照时间点如下：（a）种植体植入时；（b）假体植入时；（c）加载后6个月；（d）加载后12个月。
纳入15例接受120颗牙种植体的患者：Osseous（®）组占47%，Inhex（®）组占53%。Osseous（®）种植体在修复加载后6个月和12个月时，总体平均边缘骨丢失分别为0.27±0.43mm和0.38±0.51mm，而Inhex（®）种植体的相应值分别为0.07±0.13mm和0.12±0.17mm。这些差异具有统计学意义（P = 0.047）。Osseous（®）和Inhex（®）在上颌骨（P = 0.272）和下颌骨（P = 0.462）骨丢失方面的差异无统计学意义。
两组在6个月和12个月后的骨丢失情况经统计学分析具有显著差异，Osseous（®）种植体的骨丢失相对Inhex（®）种植体更多。尽管两组存在异质性（颈部形状、微螺纹、表面纹理），但种植体 - 基台连接似乎是影响种植体周围嵴顶骨水平的一个重要因素。无论如何，两组获得的值均在文献中描述的正常范围内。
