Barros-Filho Luiz A, DE Oliveira Guilherme J, Barros Luiz A, Marcantonio Jr Elcio
Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Araraquara, Brazil.
School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology/Implantology, Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU), Uberlândia, Brazil.
Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2022 Feb;71(1):10-15. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04533-2. Epub 2021 Jun 15.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the success and survival rate of implants with different types of prosthetic connections inserted in the posterior maxilla in native bone or in sinuses previously grafted with different biomaterials.
A total of 310 implants inserted in 113 patients were evaluated, 87 of which were inserted in association with grafted maxillary sinuses (56 morse taper (MT) implants and 31 external hexagon (EH) implants) in 37 patients, and 223 implants were inserted in native bone areas (112 MT and 111 EH implants) in 76 patients. Peri-implant clinical analyses were performed (bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical insertion level, peri-implant marginal level, and the presence of mobility or suppuration), and the radiographic bone level was evaluated.
Two implants were lost, yielding a survival rate of 99.35%. The MT implants had lower probing depths and peri-implant bone levels than the EH implants in both grafted areas and native bone areas (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences in any parameter evaluated were found between implants inserted in native bone and those inserted in grafting areas. EH implants inserted in native bone areas showed higher peri-implantitis rates.
It can be concluded that the MT implants connection reduce peri-implant bone loss, but implants inserted in maxillary sinuses previously grafted with osteoconductive biomaterials do not predispose patients to peri-implant bone loss.
本研究的目的是回顾性评估不同类型修复连接的种植体植入上颌骨后部天然骨或先前用不同生物材料移植的鼻窦后的成功率和存留率。
对113例患者植入的310枚种植体进行评估,其中37例患者的87枚种植体与上颌窦移植联合植入(56枚莫氏锥度(MT)种植体和31枚外六角(EH)种植体),76例患者的223枚种植体植入天然骨区域(112枚MT种植体和111枚EH种植体)。进行种植体周围临床分析(探诊出血、探诊深度、临床植入水平、种植体周围边缘水平以及有无松动或化脓),并评估影像学骨水平。
2枚种植体丢失,存留率为99.35%。在移植区域和天然骨区域,MT种植体的探诊深度和种植体周围骨水平均低于EH种植体(P<0.05)。在天然骨植入的种植体与移植区域植入的种植体之间,在所评估的任何参数上均未发现统计学显著差异。植入天然骨区域的EH种植体显示出较高的种植体周炎发生率。
可以得出结论,MT种植体连接可减少种植体周围骨丢失,但植入先前用骨传导生物材料移植的上颌窦的种植体不会使患者易发生种植体周围骨丢失。