Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stansell Dentistry, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Aug;20(4):479-482. doi: 10.1111/cid.12626. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
To determine whether the placement and restoration of a single tooth posterior implant affects the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent natural teeth.
A retrospective chart review identified patients who received single posterior tooth implants between August 2004 and July 2015 at the UNC SOD and met the study inclusion criteria. Preoperative and postoperative records were reviewed; survival and changes in coronal, pulpal, and periapical status of teeth adjacent to the implant and contralateral tooth were recorded. Dichotomous survival, restoration, and retreatment outcomes were analyzed using conditional logistic regression with patient as strata and implant versus control as the predictor. Exact odds ratio estimates and the 95% confidence intervals were obtained for the relationship of implant versus control side and outcomes.
Five hundred and fifty-five sites with follow-up time averaging 5 years ± 30.8 months were reviewed. Teeth adjacent to implants had 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.64) times the odds of restorative retreatments as compared to controls (P = .005). On the implant side, 48 adjacent teeth (4.5%) were more heavily restored at follow up, while 84 (7.9%) experienced retreatment with comparable number of surfaces restored. On the contralateral side, 54 adjacent teeth (5.0%) were more heavily restored, and 56 (5.2%) experienced comparable levels of retreatment. In addition, 17 (1.7%) implant adjacent teeth required root canal treatment, compared to 12 (1.2%) on the contralateral side; 1 implant adjacent tooth required root canal retreatment. Forty-two teeth (3.8%) adjacent to implants were lost, compared to 35 (3.2%) adjacent to natural teeth.
The incidence for restorative retreatment was significantly higher on teeth adjacent to implant restorations as compared to the contralateral controls. There were no significant differences in the survival, morbidity, pulpal, or periapical health of teeth adjacent to single tooth implants compared to those adjacent to the contralateral natural tooth.
确定单个后牙种植体的植入位置和修复是否会影响相邻天然牙的存活率、发病率、牙髓和根尖周健康。
回顾性图表审查确定了 2004 年 8 月至 2015 年 7 月期间在 UNC SOD 接受单个后牙种植体的患者，并符合研究纳入标准。回顾了术前和术后记录；记录了种植体相邻和对侧牙齿的存活率以及冠部、牙髓和根尖状态的变化。使用条件逻辑回归分析，以患者为分层，以植入物与对照为预测因子，分析二项生存、修复和再治疗结果。获得了植入物与对照侧和结果之间关系的精确比值比估计值和 95%置信区间。
共评估了 555 个部位，随访时间平均为 5 年±30.8 个月。与对照组相比，种植体相邻的牙齿发生修复性再治疗的可能性高 1.75 倍（95%CI：1.17，2.64）（P=0.005）。在种植体侧，48 颗相邻牙齿（4.5%）在随访时需要更大量的修复，而 84 颗（7.9%）需要进行类似数量的表面修复的再治疗。在对侧，54 颗相邻牙齿（5.0%）需要更多的修复，56 颗（5.2%）需要进行类似水平的再治疗。此外，17 颗（1.7%）种植体相邻牙齿需要根管治疗，而对侧的 12 颗（1.2%）需要根管治疗；1 颗种植体相邻牙齿需要根管再治疗。42 颗（3.8%）种植体相邻牙齿缺失，而对侧 35 颗（3.2%）天然牙齿缺失。
与对侧对照相比，种植体修复体相邻牙齿的修复性再治疗发生率显著更高。与对侧天然牙相邻的单个牙种植体相比，单个牙种植体相邻牙齿的存活率、发病率、牙髓或根尖周健康无显著差异。
