Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Dental School, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Feb;30(2):169-177. doi: 10.1111/clr.13403. Epub 2019 Feb 3.
To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four bar- and six bar-connected implants placed in the posterior region during a 5-year follow-up period.
Sixty-six fully edentulous patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure with bone from the anterior iliac crest and randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla and four implants in the mandible. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar-supported overdenture was constructed. Maxillary implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes and patient satisfaction were assessed.
Sixty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the four-implant group and 99.5% in the six-implant group. No new overdentures had to be made in the four-implant group, and three new overdentures were made in the six-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth (90.9% overdenture survival). Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.58 ± 0.51 mm in the four-implant group and 0.60 ± 0.58 mm in the six-implant group, respectively. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups.
Following a bilateral maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure, a bar-supported overdenture on four implants in the posterior maxillary region is not inferior to an overdenture supported by six implants after a 5-year evaluation period in patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and marked posterior resorption (Clinical trial registration number: NTR2969).
比较在 5 年随访期间，在后牙区植入 4 个或 6 个杆连接种植体并覆盖上颌覆盖义齿时，临床和患者报告的结果。
66 名全口无牙且上颌骨骨量不足无法植入种植体但有功能性上颌义齿抱怨的患者接受了上颌窦底提升术，取自髂前嵴的骨，并随机分为两组，分别在后上颌植入 4 或 6 个种植体，下颌植入 4 个种植体。在骨整合 3 个月后，构建了杆支持的覆盖义齿。评估上颌种植体存活率、覆盖义齿存活率、临床评分、种植体周围骨高度变化和患者满意度。
60 名患者完成了 5 年随访。4 种植体组的种植体存活率为 100%，6 种植体组为 99.5%。4 种植体组无新覆盖义齿需要制作，6 种植体组因义齿基托和牙齿过度磨损而制作了 3 个新覆盖义齿（90.9%覆盖义齿存活率）。两组的临床参数无显著差异。与基线相比，4 种植体组的平均边缘骨损失为 0.58±0.51mm，6 种植体组为 0.60±0.58mm。总体而言，患者满意度显著提高，但两组之间无差异。
在双侧上颌窦底提升术后，对于有功能性上颌义齿抱怨和明显后吸收的患者，在 5 年评估期内，4 个种植体在后上颌区支持的杆式覆盖义齿并不逊于 6 个种植体支持的覆盖义齿（临床试验注册号：NTR2969）。
