Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jan;29(1):100-107. doi: 10.1111/clr.13076. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
The objective of this 3-year split-mouth randomized controlled clinical study was to compare narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) to regular-diameter implants (RDIs) in the posterior region of the jaws (premolars and molars) in regards to (i) the marginal bone level (MBL) and (ii) implant and prosthesis survival and success rates.
A total of 22 patients were included in the study. Each patient received at least one implant of each diameter (Ø3.3 and Ø4.1 mm), placed either in the maxilla or mandible to support single crowns. A total 44 implants (22 NDIs and 22 RDIs) were placed and included in the study. Twenty-one implants were placed in the premolar, whereas 23 were placed in molar areas. Radiographic evaluations to access the MBL were performed immediately after implant placement, 1 and 3 years after implant loading. Peri-implant clinical variables including probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP) were obtained after crown delivery, 1 and 3 years after loading. Furthermore, the survival and success rates of the implants and prosthesis were also evaluated.
Twenty patients were able to complete the study. There was no statistically significant difference regarding MBL between groups at implant placement (p = .084), 1-year (p = .794) and 3-year (p = .598) time intervals. The mean peri-implant bone loss at 3-year follow-up was -0.58 ± 0.39 mm (95% CI: -0.751 to -0.409) and -0.53 ± 0.46 mm (95% CI: -0.731 to -0.329) for NDIs and RDIs, respectively. BoP was present at 15% and 10% of NDIs and RDIs, respectively, at 3-year follow-up. PPD >5 mm was observed in 5% and 0% of the implants of NDIs and RDIs, respectively, at 3-year follow-up. At the 3-year examination, the implant success rates were in the NDIs and RDIs sites, respectively, 95% and 100%. The corresponding values for prosthesis success rates were 90% for NDIs and 95% for RDIs.
The present study demonstrated that NDIs placed to support single crowns in the posterior region did not differ to RDIs in regards to MBL, implant survival, and success rates.
本为期 3 年的分口随机对照临床试验的目的是比较窄径种植体(NDIs)和常规直径种植体(RDIs)在后牙区(前磨牙和磨牙)的(i)边缘骨水平(MBL)和(ii)种植体和修复体的存活率和成功率。
共有 22 名患者参与了这项研究。每位患者都至少植入了一种直径的种植体(Ø3.3 和 Ø4.1 毫米),分别植入上颌或下颌以支持单冠。共植入 44 个种植体(22 个 NDIs 和 22 个 RDIs),其中 21 个植入前磨牙区,23 个植入磨牙区。植入后即刻、植入负荷后 1 年和 3 年进行放射学评估以评估 MBL。负荷后、负荷后 1 年和 3 年分别进行种植体周围临床变量(包括探诊袋深度(PPD)和探诊出血(BoP))的检测。此外,还评估了种植体和修复体的存活率和成功率。
20 名患者能够完成研究。植入时(p=0.084)、1 年(p=0.794)和 3 年(p=0.598)时,两组间 MBL 无统计学差异。3 年随访时,平均种植体周围骨吸收量分别为 NDIs 和 RDIs 的-0.58±0.39 毫米(95%CI:-0.751 至-0.409)和-0.53±0.46 毫米(95%CI:-0.731 至-0.329)。3 年随访时,NDIs 和 RDIs 的 BoP 分别为 15%和 10%。3 年随访时,NDIs 和 RDIs 的 PPD>5 毫米分别为 5%和 0%。3 年检查时,NDIs 和 RDIs 种植体的成功率分别为 95%和 100%。相应的修复体成功率分别为 90%的 NDIs 和 95%的 RDIs。
本研究表明,在后牙区植入单冠支持的 NDIs 在 MBL、种植体存活率和成功率方面与 RDIs 无差异。