Jokstad Asbjørn, Gussgard Anne M, Fava Joseph, Lin Mark, Shokati Babak, Somogyi-Ganss Eszter, Winnett Brenton, Zahran Mohammed
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 July/August;32(4):880–892. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5454. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
The aim of this noninterventional, retrospective study was to benchmark the outcomes of patients with partial fixed prostheses supported by implants treated at the University of Toronto at least 10 years earlier. A study protocol for assessing outcomes on like patients developed at the University of Bern, Switzerland, was followed.
All patients who had received at least one implant before 2002 were considered eligible to be included in the study (n = 298). The treatment histories were recorded from the patient chart of the participants, or from the participants' dentists by consent. Calibrated clinicians examined the study participants clinically and radiologically and recorded peri-implant mucosal status and observable technical and mechanical failures. Past adverse events were identified in the patient charts. Independent assessors measured bone levels on digitized radiographs. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics at implants, teeth, and study participant levels, respectively.
Of the 298 eligible patients, 121 attended a clinical examination (41%), while 12 declined (4%). The 121 study participants had received 321 implants between 1983 and 2001. The implants showed a success rate of 88.9% and a survival rate of 94% after an average of 17.5 years (SD 5.2, range 10 to 28 years). Approximately 5% of the surviving implants showed signs, or were associated with a prior history, of peri-implantitis. The distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone contact varied from -3 mm to 7 mm (mean = 1.52 mm [SD 1.57], median = 2.2 mm). Approximately half of the study participants had experienced at least one defect of their superstructure, representing a 52% "success rate," while the survival rate was 70%. The majority were very satisfied or satisfied with the treatment (102/121).
A high proportion (94%) of conventional machined Brånemark System implants placed between 1983 and 2001 remained in function after an average of 17.5 years. The original superstructures predominantly fabricated as prefabricated acrylic teeth and acrylic resin reinforced with a cast palladium-silver alloy core were still in place for 70% of the participants, and 48% of the superstructures had never undergone any form of repairs.
这项非介入性回顾性研究的目的是对至少在10年前于多伦多大学接受种植体支持的部分固定修复体治疗的患者的治疗结果进行基准评估。研究遵循了瑞士伯尔尼大学制定的针对类似患者评估结果的研究方案。
所有在2002年之前接受过至少一枚种植体的患者均被认为符合纳入研究的条件(n = 298)。从参与者的病历或经其同意后从参与者的牙医处记录治疗史。经过校准的临床医生对研究参与者进行临床和放射学检查,并记录种植体周围黏膜状况以及可观察到的技术和机械故障。在病历中确定既往不良事件。独立评估人员在数字化X光片上测量骨水平。统计分析分别包括在种植体、牙齿和研究参与者层面的描述性统计。
在298名符合条件的患者中,121人参加了临床检查(41%),而12人拒绝参加(4%)。121名研究参与者在1983年至2001年间共接受了321枚种植体。平均17.5年后(标准差5.2,范围10至28年),种植体的成功率为88.9%,存留率为94%。约5%的存留种植体有种植体周围炎的迹象或既往病史。从种植体肩部到首次骨接触的距离在-3毫米至7毫米之间(平均值 = 1.52毫米[标准差1.57],中位数 = 2.2毫米)。约一半的研究参与者经历过至少一次上部结构缺陷,“成功率”为52%,而存留率为70%。大多数人对治疗非常满意或满意(102/121)。
1983年至2001年间植入的传统加工的布伦马克系统种植体,平均17.5年后仍有很高比例(94%)在发挥功能。最初主要由预制丙烯酸牙和铸钯银合金芯增强的丙烯酸树脂制成的上部结构,仍有70%的参与者使用,且48%的上部结构从未进行过任何形式的修复。