Suppr超能文献

两段式与两段式技术联合使用双支短种植体:一项为期一年的多中心随机分口研究。

One-stage versus two-stage technique using two splinted extra-short implants: A multicentric split-mouth study with a one-year follow-up.

机构信息

Division of Prosthodontics and Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

出版信息

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Oct;24(5):602-610. doi: 10.1111/cid.13113. Epub 2022 Jun 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of extra-short implants (≤6.5 mm) inserted with one-stage versus two-stage technique in adjacent sites of the upper or lower jaw.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this split-mouth multicenter study, implants were randomly divided into two groups according to the healing phase: two-stage and one-stage technique. Primary outcome measures were implant survival, implant success, and prosthodontic complications. Secondary outcome measurements were: implant stability quotient (ISQ) collected at surgery time (T0), and after 3 (T3) and 12 (T12) months, marginal bone level (MBL) evaluated at T0, T3, T6, and T12, marginal bone loss evaluated at T6 and T12, plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at T3, T6, and T12. Significances of differences between groups were tested by linear mixed model with random intercept.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (8 males and 11 females) were included. A total of 38 implants were inserted. At T12 implant cumulative survival and implant success rate were 100% in both groups. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any of the analyzed parameters between the two groups at any time point. ISQ values were similar at T0 (two-stage: mean 67.53 ± SD 19.47; one-stage: mean 66.53 ± 19.07 p = 0.8738) and increased in both groups at the 12-month follow-up appointment (two-stage: 81.1 ± 7.04; one-stage: 81.39 ± 0.9266). MBL values were similar in the two groups at any time point. At T12 marginal bone loss was 0.46 ± 0.41 (two-stage) and 0.45 ± 0.38 (one-stage) mm (p = 0.9417), while mean PD was 2.7 ± 0.85 (two-stage) and 2.69 ± 0.89 (one-stage) mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present short-term report, extra-short implants demonstrated optimal clinical outcomes using the one-stage technique, without statistically significant differences compared with the traditional two-stage approach.

摘要

目的

比较在上颌或下颌相邻部位采用一期和二期手术植入超短种植体(≤6.5mm)的临床效果。

材料与方法

本研究采用中心随机分组,根据愈合阶段将种植体随机分为两组:二期手术组和一期手术组。主要观察指标为种植体存活率、成功率和修复并发症。次要观察指标为:手术时(T0)、术后 3 个月(T3)和 12 个月(T12)时收集的种植体稳定性指数(ISQ);T0、T3、T6 和 T12 时的边缘骨水平(MBL);T6 和 T12 时的边缘骨丧失;T3、T6 和 T12 时的菌斑指数(PI)、探诊深度(PD)和探诊出血(BoP)。采用随机截距线性混合模型检验组间差异的显著性。

结果

共纳入 19 名患者(8 名男性和 11 名女性),共植入 38 枚种植体。在 T12 时,两组种植体的累积存活率和成功率均为 100%。在任何时间点,两组间任何分析参数均无统计学差异。T0 时两组的 ISQ 值相似(二期手术:平均 67.53±19.47;一期手术:平均 66.53±19.07,p=0.8738),两组在 12 个月随访时均增加(二期手术:81.1±7.04;一期手术:81.39±0.9266)。两组在任何时间点的 MBL 值均相似。在 T12 时,边缘骨丧失分别为 0.46±0.41(二期手术)和 0.45±0.38(一期手术)mm(p=0.9417),平均 PD 分别为 2.7±0.85(二期手术)和 2.69±0.89(一期手术)mm。

结论

在本短期报告的范围内,超短种植体采用一期手术技术可获得理想的临床效果,与传统的二期手术方法相比,无统计学差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8c73/9796435/283353f79807/CID-24-602-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验