Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Korea University Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Seoul 08308, Korea.
The Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Tai'an 271016, China.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Sep 25;57(10):1009. doi: 10.3390/medicina57101009.
: The aim of our study was to test whether wide diameter (6 mm) implants perform differently from standard diameter (4 mm) implants in terms of marginal bone level and survival rate. : Our sample comprised 72 patients who underwent surgery; a total of 80 implants were placed in the maxillary or mandibular molar region. Patients were divided into two groups according to the diameter of the implant, and were followed up for six years after the final setting of the prosthetics. In the test group, 40 implants with 6-mm diameter were inserted; in the control group, 40 standard diameter implants were inserted. Using panoramic radiographs, we investigated mesial and distal marginal bone levels around the implant fixtures. : After the first implant surgery, three implants, including one wide diameter and two standard diameter implants, failed due to lack of osseointegration. We did not note any fixture fracture during the six-year follow-up. After loading, we observed a six-year survival rate of 97.29% with no statistically significant difference from standard diameter implants, with a survival rate of 94.87%. : This study shows that 6-mm diameter implants may be considered in the presence of adequate alveolar ridge width in the posterior maxillary and mandibular regions.
我们的研究目的是测试宽直径（6 毫米）种植体在边缘骨水平和存活率方面是否与标准直径（4 毫米）种植体表现不同。
我们的样本包括 72 名接受手术的患者；在上颌或下颌磨牙区共放置了 80 个种植体。根据种植体的直径将患者分为两组，并在最终修复体设置后进行六年的随访。在实验组中，插入了 40 个直径为 6 毫米的种植体；在对照组中，插入了 40 个标准直径的种植体。使用全景 X 光片，我们研究了种植体周围近中和远中边缘骨水平。
在第一次种植手术后，由于缺乏骨整合，包括一个宽直径和两个标准直径的种植体在内的三个种植体失败。在六年的随访期间，我们没有注意到任何器械断裂。在负载后，我们观察到 6 年的存活率为 97.29%，与标准直径种植体无统计学差异，存活率为 94.87%。
这项研究表明，在后部上颌和下颌牙槽嵴宽度足够的情况下，可以考虑使用 6 毫米直径的种植体。
