Planinić Davor, Dubravica Ivica, Šarac Zdenko, Poljak-Guberina Renata, Celebic Asja, Bago Ivona, Cabov Tomislav, Peric Berislav
Private Dental Office, Medjugorje, Bosnia and Hercegovina.
Private Dental Office, Vodice, Croatia.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Nov;122(5):487-493. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.08.004. Epub 2020 Aug 21.
Stability of a dental implant is very important when planning immediate loading and design of a final restoration. The aim of this study was to compare the primary and the secondary stability of dental implants inserted by three different surgical techniques: conventional (standard) technique using a sequence of drills for implant bed preparation, osteotome technique using tapered hand instruments for creating implant sites by condensing the bone and guided flapless implant surgery with surgical templates.
The study included 150 patients (80 males and 70 females), 46-71 years old, who required implant supported fixed partial dentures in the posterior maxilla of D3 or D4 bone density. Patients were randomly assigned into one of the three surgical insertion technique groups. All patients received tapered implants of the same manufacturer of the same length and two different widths (3.3 × 11.5 mm or 4.2 × 11.5 mm). Primary and secondary implant stability were measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at the time of implant placement and 5 months after surgery using the Ostell ISQ device (Osstell AB, Sampgatan, Goteborg, Sweden). Statistical analysis included one-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test, descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis (Bonferoni post-hoc tests) and paired t-tests.
Patients in the osteotome group exhibited higher primary stability (P < 0.01) than in the conventional and surgically guided flapless groups. There were no significant differences in the secondary stability (p > 0.05). Wider implants presented higher ISQ values (P<0.01).
The osteotome technique led to the highest implant primary stability, therefore it can be recommended when immediate loading is planned or for one-piece implant insertion.
在计划即刻负重和最终修复体设计时,牙种植体的稳定性非常重要。本研究的目的是比较三种不同手术技术植入牙种植体的初期稳定性和二期稳定性:使用一系列钻头制备种植窝的传统(标准)技术、使用锥形手动器械通过挤压骨组织创建种植位点的骨凿技术以及使用手术模板的引导下无瓣种植手术。
本研究纳入了150例患者(80例男性和70例女性),年龄在46至71岁之间,他们需要在上颌后牙区植入支持式固定局部义齿,骨密度为D3或D4。患者被随机分配到三种手术植入技术组中的一组。所有患者均接受同一制造商生产的相同长度、两种不同宽度(3.3×11.5mm或4.2×11.5mm)的锥形种植体。在种植体植入时以及术后5个月,使用Ostell ISQ设备(瑞典哥德堡桑普加坦的Osstell AB公司)通过共振频率分析(RFA)测量种植体的初期和二期稳定性。统计分析包括单样本柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验、描述性统计、多变量分析(Bonferoni事后检验)和配对t检验。
骨凿组患者的初期稳定性高于传统组和手术引导下无瓣组(P<0.01)。二期稳定性无显著差异(P>0.05)。较宽的种植体呈现出更高的ISQ值(P<0.01)。
骨凿技术导致种植体的初期稳定性最高,因此在计划即刻负重或一体式种植体植入时可推荐使用。