Rocci A, Calcaterra R, Rocci M, Rocci C, DI Girolamo M, Baggi L
Private Practice, Chieti, Italy.
Department of Social Dentistry, National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, Rome, Italy.
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2016 Nov 13;9(1):11-16. doi: 10.11138/orl/2016.9.1.011. eCollection 2016 Jan-Mar.
In this study we tested two different type of implant systems that were selected on the basis of differences in macrogeometry of platform switching in order to evaluate the behavior in term of BIC on the platform.
The patients were divided in two groups (Group I and II); group I was composed by 4 patients that each received in the posterior areas of mandible one type A implant (3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTBPlan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy) one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). Group II was composed by 3 patients that each received in the posterior areas of jawsbone one type A implant [3,6 mm in diameter and 6,5 mm in length GTB- Plan1Health Amaro, (UD), Italy] one type B implant (4 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). All the implants were placed, by the same operator, in equicrestal position using "one stage" technique with a healing abutment at an adequate gingival height. After 12 weeks of healing all the implants of both groups were harvested with the peri-implant bone tissues. BIC upon platform was calculated considering as implant surface the platform length.
Our results showed that the mean percentage of BIC value related to platform surface placed in equicrestal position was higher in patients with type A implant than patients receiving type B implant independently from mandibular or maxillary positions. Moreover the mean percentage of BIC related to platform surface was significantly (p<0.05) higher in Group II/A than Group I/A.
Our data highlights that the particular features of the Bioplatform of Type A implant systems guarantee a higher value of BIC even if the implants were placed equicrestally.
在本研究中，我们测试了两种基于平台转换宏观几何形状差异而选择的不同类型的种植系统，以便评估平台上骨结合（BIC）方面的表现。
将患者分为两组（I组和II组）；I组由4名患者组成，每名患者在下颌后部区域植入一枚A 型种植体（直径3.6 mm，长度6.5 mm，GTBPlan1Health Amaro，意大利乌迪内）和一枚B型种植体（直径4 mm，长度8 mm，OsseoSpeed Astra Tech，登士柏，瑞典莫恩达尔）。II组由3名患者组成，每名患者在颌骨后部区域植入一枚A 型种植体[直径3.6 mm，长度6.5 mm，GTB - Plan1Health Amaro，意大利乌迪内]和一枚B型种植体（直径4 mm，长度8 mm，OsseoSpeed Astra Tech，登士柏，瑞典莫恩达尔）。所有种植体均由同一名操作者采用“一期”技术放置在等嵴顶位置，并在适当的牙龈高度使用愈合基台。愈合12周后，将两组所有种植体与种植体周围骨组织一起取出。将平台长度视为种植体表面，计算平台上的骨结合率。
我们的结果表明，无论在下颌还是上颌位置，植入A 型种植体的患者中，与放置在等嵴顶位置的平台表面相关的骨结合率平均值高于植入B型种植体的患者。此外，II组/A中与平台表面相关的骨结合率平均值显著高于I组/A（p<0.05）。
我们的数据表明，即使种植体等嵴顶放置，A 型种植系统生物平台的特殊特征仍能保证更高的骨结合率。
