Guarnieri Renzo, Rappelli Giorgio, Piemontese Matteo, Procaccini Maurizio, Quaranta Alessandro
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Sep-Oct;31(5):1117-25. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4563.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of and determine the differences in periodonto-pathogenic microbiota around two types of implant collar surfaces: laser-microtextured (test) vs machined (control).
Seventeen patients (11 periodontally healthy, and 6 periodontally compromised) were selected to receive the two different implants, placed randomly, in two edentulous sites. Six months following the surgical placement of the dental implants, subgingival plaque samples were collected using paper points from the peri-implant sulcus and from the sulcus of an adjacent tooth. The presence of five putative periodontal pathogens, namely, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythensis, was assessed using real-time polymerized chain reaction (RT-PCR). Peri-implant parameters and intraoral radiographs were recorded up to 1 year after abutment connection.
In the main population, and in the periodontally compromised subgroup, the total number of periodontal pathogens around test implant sites was lower than control implant sites and adjacent tooth sites, with a statistically significant difference (P < .05). In periodontally healthy patients, the mean probing pocket depth for the test implant was 1.31 ± 0.51 mm, compared with 2.66 ± 0.83 mm for the control implant, while in periodontally compromised patients, it was 1.61 ± 0.58 mm for the test implant, compared with a mean value of 2.84 ± 1.0 mm for the control implant.
Implants with a laser-microtextured collar surface are not more vulnerable to pathogenic microflora colonization than implants with a machined collar surface. In both of the subgroups of patients (periodontally healthy and periodontally compromised), implants with a laser-microtextured collar surface have a better clinical outcome at 1 year of loading, compared with implants with a machined collar surface.
本研究旨在比较两种类型种植体颈部表面（激光微纹理化表面[试验组]与机械加工表面[对照组]）周围牙周致病微生物群的临床结果，并确定其差异。
选取17例患者（11例牙周健康，6例牙周受损），在两个无牙部位随机植入两种不同的种植体。种植体手术植入6个月后，使用纸尖从种植体周围龈沟和相邻牙齿的龈沟中采集龈下菌斑样本。采用实时聚合酶链反应（RT-PCR）评估5种假定的牙周病原体，即伴放线聚集杆菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌、中间普氏菌、具核梭杆菌和福赛坦纳菌的存在情况。记录基台连接后长达1年的种植体周围参数和口腔内X光片。
在主要人群以及牙周受损亚组中，试验种植体部位周围牙周病原体的总数低于对照种植体部位和相邻牙齿部位，差异具有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。在牙周健康患者中，试验种植体的平均探诊袋深度为1.31±0.51毫米，对照种植体为2.66±0.83毫米；而在牙周受损患者中，试验种植体的平均探诊袋深度为1.61±0.58毫米，对照种植体的平均值为2.84±1.0毫米。
与机械加工颈部表面的种植体相比，激光微纹理化颈部表面的种植体对致病微生物定植的易感性并不更高。在两组患者亚组（牙周健康和牙周受损）中，与机械加工颈部表面的种植体相比，激光微纹理化颈部表面的种植体在加载1年后具有更好的临床结果。
