Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Jul/Aug;35(4):841-849. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7605.
This nonrandomized, retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and clinical parameters around single implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars placed and loaded using different protocols after 7 to 10 years of function.
A chart review was used to select patients treated at five private dental clinics with single dental implants with and without laser-microgrooved collars. Cumulative success rates, peri-implant marginal bone loss, probing depth, Plaque Index, bleeding on probing, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline examinations (ie, definitive restoration delivery) and at each year during the follow-up period.
Three hundred single implants (140 without laser-microgrooved collars and 160 with 1.7-mm laser-microgrooved collars) in 300 patients were selected. At the completion of the study period, 26 patients and 26 implants (17 with and 9 without a laser-microgrooved collar) were classified as "dropouts." Implants and restorations were categorized into two subgroups each for a total of four study groups: group 1, immediate implant placement; group 2, delayed implant placement; group 3, immediate nonocclusal loading of prostheses; and group 4, delayed loading of prostheses. Nineteen implants (6.9%) failed clinically (4 [2.7%] with and 15 [11.4%] without a laser-microgrooved collar). The difference in cumulative success rates was statistically significant (P < .05). Radiographically, at the end of the follow-up period, the laser-microgrooved group showed a mean peri-implant marginal bone loss of 0.64 mm compared with 1.82 mm for the non-laser-microgrooved group. At the same time point, a mean probing depth of 0.76 mm was observed for the laser-microgrooved group compared with 2.75 mm for the non-laser-microgrooved group. A statistically significant difference in peri-implant marginal bone loss and probing depth between the two types of implant collars was evident (P < .05). No statistically significant correlation was noted between the types of implant placement/prosthetic restoration and clinical parameters.
Implants with a laser-microgrooved collar appear to influence the peri-implant soft and hard tissue stability, reducing the probing depth levels and the peri-implant marginal bone loss by more than 50% after 10 years of function, regardless of the type of implant placement and loading protocol.
本非随机、回顾性多中心研究旨在评估单颗种植体在使用不同方案植入和负载后 7 至 10 年的成功率、种植体周围边缘骨丧失和临床参数，这些种植体带有和不带有激光微沟槽颈圈。
使用图表回顾法选择了五家私人牙科诊所接受单颗牙科种植体治疗的患者，这些种植体带有和不带有激光微沟槽颈圈。在基线检查（即最终修复体交付）和随访期间的每年，记录累积成功率、种植体周围边缘骨丧失、探诊深度、菌斑指数、探诊出血和牙龈退缩。
共选择了 300 名患者的 300 颗单颗种植体（140 颗不带激光微沟槽颈圈，160 颗带 1.7mm 激光微沟槽颈圈）。在研究结束时，26 名患者和 26 颗种植体（17 颗带激光微沟槽颈圈，9 颗不带）被归类为“脱落者”。种植体和修复体各自分为两组，共分为四个研究组：第 1 组，即刻种植体植入；第 2 组，延迟种植体植入；第 3 组，即刻非咬合负载修复体；第 4 组，延迟负载修复体。19 颗种植体（6.9%）临床失败（4 颗[2.7%]带激光微沟槽颈圈，15 颗[11.4%]不带）。累积成功率的差异具有统计学意义（P<.05）。影像学方面，在随访期末，激光微沟槽组的种植体周围边缘骨丧失平均为 0.64mm，而非激光微沟槽组为 1.82mm。同时，激光微沟槽组的探诊深度平均为 0.76mm，而非激光微沟槽组为 2.75mm。两种类型的种植体颈圈之间的种植体周围边缘骨丧失和探诊深度存在统计学显著差异（P<.05）。种植体植入和修复体类型与临床参数之间无统计学显著相关性。
带有激光微沟槽颈圈的种植体似乎影响种植体周围软硬组织的稳定性，在 10 年的功能后，将探诊深度水平和种植体周围边缘骨丧失降低 50%以上，无论种植体植入和负载方案如何。
