两种重组人骨形态发生蛋白-2 输送系统行牙槽嵴保存后单牙种植的预后。
Prognosis of single tooth implants following alveolar ridge preservation with two recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 delivery systems.
机构信息
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, 13620, Seongnam, Korea.
Office of Human Resources Development, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Armed Forces Medical Command, Seongnam, Korea.
出版信息
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Apr 20;21(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01565-5.
BACKGROUND
We previously reported similar efficacies of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on single extraction socket with two different E. coli derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) delivery systems (Cowell BMP, Cowell medi Co, Busan, Korea; β-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite particle & O-BMP, Osstem Implant Co, Busan, Korea; absorbable collagen sponge). After the trial, we completed implant therapy and observed over an average of 3 years. This follow-up study was performed retrospectively to compare result of implant treatment at the preserved alveolar ridge site.
METHODS
Patients who underwent extraction of single tooth and received ARP with one of two rhBMP-2 delivery systems from October 2015 to October 2016 were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients (Group 1: Cowell BMP 14; Group 2: O-BMP 14) who underwent implant therapy and prosthetic treatment were included in study. Stability and marginal bone loss (MBL) of each implant were collected from medical charts and radiographs, and analyzed. The survival and success rates of implants were calculated.
RESULTS
The primary implant stability represented by implant stability quotient (ISQ) for Groups 1 and 2 was 69.71 and 72.86, respectively. The secondary implant stability for Groups 1 and 2 was 78.86 and 81.64, respectively. Primary and secondary stabilities were not statistically different (P = 0.316 and 0.185, respectively). MBL at the latest follow-up was 0.014 mm in Group 1 over 33.76 ± 14.31 months and 0.021 mm in Group 2 over 40.20 ± 9.64 months, with no significant difference (P = 0.670). In addition, the success rate of implants was 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2, with survival rate of 100% (14/14) in Group 1 and 92.9% (13/14) in Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed good prognosis in both groups as a result of implant therapy after ARP with each of two rhBMP-2 carriers.
背景
我们之前报道了两种不同的大肠杆菌来源的重组人骨形态发生蛋白-2（rhBMP-2）输送系统（Cowell BMP，Cowell medi Co，韩国釜山；β-磷酸三钙和羟基磷灰石颗粒和 O-BMP，Osstem Implant Co，韩国釜山；可吸收胶原海绵）在单个拔牙窝中进行牙槽嵴保存（ARP）的相似疗效。试验结束后，我们完成了种植体治疗并观察了平均 3 年以上。本随访研究回顾性地比较了保留下的牙槽嵴部位种植体治疗的结果。
方法
本研究纳入了 2015 年 10 月至 2016 年 10 月期间接受了两种 rhBMP-2 输送系统之一的 ARP 治疗并接受单个牙齿拔除的患者。共纳入 28 例患者（第 1 组：Cowell BMP 14 例；第 2 组：O-BMP 14 例），均接受了种植体治疗和修复治疗。从病历和 X 光片中收集了每个种植体的稳定性和边缘骨吸收（MBL）数据，并进行了分析。计算了种植体的存活率和成功率。
结果
第 1 组和第 2 组的主要种植体稳定性（代表为种植体稳定性指数[ISQ]）分别为 69.71 和 72.86。第 1 组和第 2 组的次要种植体稳定性分别为 78.86 和 81.64。主要和次要稳定性没有统计学差异（P=0.316 和 0.185）。第 1 组在 33.76±14.31 个月时的末次随访时的 MBL 为 0.014mm，第 2 组在 40.20±9.64 个月时的 MBL 为 0.021mm，无统计学差异（P=0.670）。此外，第 1 组的种植体成功率为 100%（14/14），第 2 组的种植体成功率为 92.9%（13/14）；第 1 组的种植体存活率为 100%（14/14），第 2 组的种植体存活率为 92.9%（13/14）。
结论
我们确认了两组患者在接受 ARP 后进行种植体治疗的良好预后，这两种方法均使用了两种 rhBMP-2 载体。
Zotero 插件