Advanced Periodontics, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Seville, Spain.
Technological Health Research Center, Biomaterials of the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, International University of Cataluña, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 17;17(24):9453. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249453.
: (PRIMARY) Assess the changes in bone level (6 and 12 months after implant placement) between the test (definitive abutment (DEF)) and control (healing abutment (HEA)) groups. (SECONDARY) Assess the changes in bone level (6 and 12 months after implant placement) between the 1 mm high abutment group and 2 mm abutment group. Evaluate changes in implant stability recorded with analysis of the resonance frequency (RFA) Osstell system, at 6 and 12 months after implant placement, between the control group (HEA) and test (DEF). For the DEF group, the abutment was placed at the time of the surgery and was never removed. For the HEA group, the abutment was removed three times during the manufacture of the crowns. The abutments used were 1 mm high (Subgroup A) and 2 mm high (Subgroup B). Materials and methods: A total of 147 patients were selected between 54.82 ± 11.92 years old. After implant placement, patients were randomly distributed in the DEF and HEA group. After the implant placement, a periapical radiograph was taken to assess the peri-implant bone level; the same procedure was carried out 6 and 12 months post-placement. To compare the qualitative variables between the groups (HEA/DEF), the Chi-square test was used; for quantitative (MANOVA). : After a year, the accumulated bone loss was 0.48 ± 0.71 mm for the HEA group and 0.36 ± 0.79 mm for the DEF group, without statistical significance. Differences were only found due to timing (time) between 0 and 6 months (=0.001) and 0 and 12 months (0.001), with no differences attributable to the study groups (DEF and HEA). The accumulated bone loss (1 year) was 0.45 ± 0.78 mm for the 1 mm abutment group and 0.41 ± 0.70 mm for the 2 mm abutment group ( = 0.02). No differences were observed in implant stability between groups. : The "One Abutment-One Time" concept does not reduce peri-implant bone loss compared to the connection-disconnection technique. The height of the abutment does influence bone loss: the higher the abutment, the lower the bone loss.
（主要）评估测试（最终修复基台（DEF））和对照（愈合基台（HEA））两组在植入物放置后 6 个月和 12 个月时的骨水平变化。（次要）评估 1 毫米高基台组和 2 毫米基台组在植入物放置后 6 个月和 12 个月时的骨水平变化。使用 Osstell 系统分析共振频率（RFA）评估植入物稳定性的变化，在植入物放置后 6 个月和 12 个月时，对照组（HEA）和测试组（DEF）之间的变化。对于 DEF 组，基台在手术时放置，从未拆除。对于 HEA 组，在制作牙冠的过程中，基台被拆除了三次。使用的基台分别为 1 毫米高（亚组 A）和 2 毫米高（亚组 B）。材料和方法：共选择了 54.82±11.92 岁的 147 名患者。植入物放置后，患者被随机分配到 DEF 和 HEA 组。植入物放置后，拍摄根尖片评估种植体周围骨水平；在植入物放置后 6 个月和 12 个月进行相同的操作。为了比较组间（HEA/DEF）的定性变量，使用卡方检验；对于定量（MANOVA）。一年后，HEA 组的累积骨损失为 0.48±0.71mm，DEF 组为 0.36±0.79mm，无统计学意义。仅因时间（时间）在 0 至 6 个月（=0.001）和 0 至 12 个月（0.001）之间存在差异，与研究组（DEF 和 HEA）无关。1mm 基台组 1 年的累积骨损失为 0.45±0.78mm，2mm 基台组为 0.41±0.70mm（=0.02）。组间在种植体稳定性方面无差异。结论：与连接-断开技术相比，“一个基台-一次”概念并不能减少种植体周围的骨丢失。基台的高度确实会影响骨丢失：基台越高，骨丢失越低。
