Hamdan Bin Mohamed College of Dental Medicine, Mohamed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Dubai, UAE.
Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building Block F, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Apr 1;21(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01530-2.
This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).
This case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant-supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations.
A total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient's age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001).
Mean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.
本研究回顾性评估了单颗种植体支持的牙冠和种植体支持的固定义齿（FDP）的临床效果。
本病例系列比较了 2009 年至 2016 年期间在迪拜卫生局接受种植牙的所有患者中，在特定时间框架内，单颗种植体支持牙冠和种植体支持桥的生物和技术并发症。仅纳入了 3 单位种植体支持的修复体（FDP）进行比较，这些修复体具有一个中间桥体和每个末端的一个种植体。不包括悬臂种植体、种植体支持义齿以及涉及骨移植或窦提升的病例。主要结局测量指标为种植体放置后基线和种植体加载后 1 年时的边缘骨丢失，而种植体周围炎和技术并发症为次要结局。采用混合回归模型调整患者内种植体的聚类，以评估患者和种植体因素的相关性。
共有 454 名患者（男性 152 名；女性 302 名）共植入 1673 颗种植体。男性（53.7 岁，SD 14.6）的平均年龄显著大于女性（49.3 岁，SD 12.9，p<0.001）。在 FDP 上的近中边缘骨丢失在 1 年后显著更大（1.14 毫米，SD 0.63），而单颗种植体支持牙冠的近中表面为 0.30 毫米，SD 0.43，p<0.001）。在桥体支撑的种植体的远中表面上，1 年后的远中边缘骨丢失也显著更大（1.29 毫米，SD 0.71），而单颗种植体支持牙冠的远中表面为 0.36 毫米，SD 0.54，p<0.001）。在下前六区植入的种植体周围的近中和远中边缘骨丢失平均值明显大于其他所有部位（p<0.001）。性别、患者年龄和身体状况的骨丢失在两组种植体之间没有差异。螺丝松动是主要的技术并发症（11.5%），而种植体周围炎很少发生（0.5%）。66 颗粘结固位的种植体与 1607 颗螺钉固位的种植体相比，并发症明显更多（p<0.001）。
在种植体加载后 1 年，FDP（3 单位固定桥）支持种植体周围的平均边缘骨丢失大于单颗种植体支持牙冠。在口腔中的位置与骨丢失有关。生物和技术并发症很少发生。
