Strauss Franz-Josef, Hämmerle Christoph H F, Thoma Daniel S
Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 May;32(5):651-656. doi: 10.1111/clr.13737. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
To analyse whether there is a difference in marginal bone levels (MBL) and the respective changes between cemented and screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading.
Radiographic data from 14 prospective multicentre clinical trials following implant loading with fixed cemented (CEM) or screw-retained (SCREW) reconstructions with a 3- to 5-year follow-up were retrieved from a database. MBL and MBL changes were assessed at initiation of implant loading (BL), at 3 (FU-3) and 5 years (FU-5) thereafter. The presence of peri-implantitis was also determined.
Data from 1,672 implants at BL, 1,565 implants at FU-3 and 1,109 implants at FU-5 were available. The mean MBL amounted to 0.57 mm (SD 0.87) at BL, 0.55 mm (SD 0.86) at FU-3 and 0.65 mm (SD 1.18) at FU-5. At FU-3, the mean MBL was 0.44 mm (SD 0.65) in group CEM and 0.63 mm (SD 0.99) in group SCREW showing a significant difference between the groups (intergroup <0.05). At FU-5, the mean MBL was 0.42 mm (SD 0.77) in CEM and 0.80 mm (SD 1.37) in SCREW, again with significant differences between both groups (p < .05). MBL changes between BL and FU-3 amounted to 0.11 mm (SD 1.02) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.17 mm (SD 1.03) (bone gain) in CEM. Similarly, mean MBL changes from BL to FU-5 amounted to 0.23 mm (SD 1.31) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.26 mm (SD 1.27) (bone gain) in CEM. The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 6.9% in CEM and 5.6% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .29063) at FU-3. At FU-5, peri-implantitis amounted to 4.6% in CEM and 6.2% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .28242).
Cemented implant reconstructions compared with screw-retained reconstructions revealed higher marginal bone levels and similar rates of peri-implantitis during 5 years. The difference in MBL and the respective changes between the two groups, however, appear to be clinically negligible.
分析在种植体负载3年和5年时，粘结式和螺丝固位式修复体的边缘骨水平（MBL）及其各自的变化是否存在差异。
从数据库中检索14项前瞻性多中心临床试验的影像学数据，这些试验对采用固定粘结式（CEM）或螺丝固位式（SCREW）修复体的种植体进行负载，并进行了3至5年的随访。在种植体负载开始时（基线，BL）、此后3年（随访3年，FU - 3）和5年（随访5年，FU - 5）评估MBL和MBL变化。同时还确定种植体周围炎的存在情况。
可得基线时1672颗种植体、随访3年时1565颗种植体和随访5年时1109颗种植体的数据。基线时平均MBL为0.57毫米（标准差0.87），随访3年时为0.55毫米（标准差0.86），随访5年时为0.65毫米（标准差1.18）。在随访3年时，CEM组平均MBL为0.44毫米（标准差0.65），SCREW组为0.63毫米（标准差0.99），两组间存在显著差异（组间p<0.05）。在随访5年时，CEM组平均MBL为0.42毫米（标准差0.77），SCREW组为0.80毫米（标准差1.37），两组间同样存在显著差异（p<0.05）。从基线到随访3年，SCREW组MBL变化为0.11毫米（标准差1.02）（骨吸收），CEM组为 - 0.17毫米（标准差1.03）（骨增加）。同样，从基线到随访5年，SCREW组平均MBL变化为0.23毫米（标准差1.31）（骨吸收），CEM组为 - 0.26毫米（标准差1.27）（骨增加）。在随访3年时，CEM组种植体周围炎患病率为6.9%，SCREW组为5.6%（组间p = 0.29063）。在随访5年时，CEM组种植体周围炎患病率为4.6%，SCREW组为6.2%（组间p = 0.28242）。
与螺丝固位式修复体相比，粘结式种植体修复体在5年期间显示出更高的边缘骨水平和相似的种植体周围炎发生率。然而，两组间MBL的差异及其各自的变化在临床上似乎可以忽略不计。
