• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估 2 种不同种植体-愈合基台界面的微渗漏。

Assessing Microleakage at 2 Different Implant-Healing Abutment Interfaces.

机构信息

Department of Oral Anatomy and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Department of Oral Anatomy and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Center for Future Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Int Dent J. 2023 Jun;73(3):370-376. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.07.010. Epub 2022 Sep 6.

DOI:10.1016/j.identj.2022.07.010
PMID:36075760
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10213788/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate implants from different manufacturers and determine whether implant-healing abutment interface has a significant impact on implant seal.

METHODS

An air-injection pressure measurement test was performed on implants with either line-contact (modified TSIII [TSM] and Bone Level Tapered [BLT]) or partial face-contact (BlueDiamond [BD], SuperLine [SL], ISII, and UFII) interface design from 6 different manufacturers. Forty implants per implant type were analysed. Pressure data were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post hoc analysis (statistical significance was set at P < .05).

RESULTS

BLT implants leaked when the mean pressure was increased to 199.9 kPa. The following implants showed mean leakage pressures of 182.9 (TSM), 157.4 (BD), 112.9 (SL), 101.8 (ISII), and 30.6 (UFII). There was a significant difference between line-contact and partial face-contact implants (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implant interface design has a significant impact on implant microbial leakage. Implants with a line-contact interface exhibited a higher resistance to leakage than those with partial face-contact.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估来自不同制造商的种植体，并确定种植体-愈合基台界面是否对种植体密封有重大影响。

方法

对来自 6 家不同制造商的具有线接触（改良 TSIII[TSM]和骨水平渐细型[BLT]）或部分面接触（BlueDiamond[BD]、SuperLine[SL]、ISII 和 UFII）界面设计的种植体进行空气注射压力测量试验。对每种种植体类型分析 40 个种植体。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验和 Dunn 事后分析评估压力数据（统计学意义设为 P <.05）。

结果

BLT 种植体在平均压力增加到 199.9 kPa 时发生泄漏。以下种植体的平均泄漏压力分别为 182.9 kPa（TSM）、157.4 kPa（BD）、112.9 kPa（SL）、101.8 kPa（ISII）和 30.6 kPa（UFII）。线接触和部分面接触种植体之间存在显著差异（P <.001）。

结论

种植体界面设计对种植体微生物泄漏有重大影响。具有线接触界面的种植体比具有部分面接触的种植体具有更高的抗泄漏能力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/45681b2daa9d/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/24b3d07e3cd7/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/aad46dcbee86/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/45681b2daa9d/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/24b3d07e3cd7/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/aad46dcbee86/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d93f/10213788/45681b2daa9d/gr3.jpg

相似文献

1
Assessing Microleakage at 2 Different Implant-Healing Abutment Interfaces.评估 2 种不同种植体-愈合基台界面的微渗漏。
Int Dent J. 2023 Jun;73(3):370-376. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.07.010. Epub 2022 Sep 6.
2
The impact of Morse taper implant design on microleakage at implant-healing abutment interface.莫氏锥度种植体设计对种植体-愈合基台界面微渗漏的影响。
Dent Mater J. 2022 Oct 2;41(5):767-773. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2022-022. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
3
In Vitro Comparison of Microbial Leakage of the Implant-Healing Abutment Interface in Four Connection Systems.四种连接系统中种植体-愈合基台界面微生物渗漏的体外比较
J Oral Implantol. 2019 Oct;45(5):350-355. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00311. Epub 2019 Aug 7.
4
Evaluation of the sealing capability of implants to titanium and zirconia abutments against Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum under different screw torque values.评估在不同螺钉扭矩值下种植体与钛和氧化锆基台对牙龈卟啉单胞菌、中间普氏菌和具核梭杆菌的封闭能力。
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.11.010. Epub 2014 Mar 20.
5
Microgap and bacterial microleakage during the osseointegration period: An in vitro assessment of the cover screw and healing abutment in a platform-switched implant system.在骨整合期的微间隙和细菌微渗漏：一种在平台转换种植体系统中对覆盖螺丝和愈合基台的体外评估。
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Jul;130(1):87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.07.030. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
6
[Establishment of animal model of bacterial microleakage at implant-abutment interface].[种植体-基台界面细菌微渗漏动物模型的建立]
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020 May 9;55(5):337-342. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20191203-00434.
7
Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study.骨结合种植体基台-种植体界面的微渗漏：一项对比研究。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Jan-Feb;14(1):94-100.
8
In vitro analysis of the microbiological sealing of tapered implants after mechanical cycling.机械循环后锥形种植体微生物封闭的体外分析
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Dec;20(9):2437-2445. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1744-0. Epub 2016 Feb 20.
9
A New Experimental Design for Bacterial Microleakage Investigation at the Implant-Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study.一种用于种植体-基台界面细菌微渗漏研究的新实验设计：一项体外研究。
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Jan-Feb;31(1):37-44. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3713.
10
Effects of Taper Angle and Sealant Agents on Bacterial Leakage Along the Implant-Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study Under Loaded Conditions.锥角和封闭剂对种植体-基台界面细菌渗漏的影响：负载条件下的体外研究
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 September/October;33(5):1071–1077. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6257. Epub 2018 Jun 12.

本文引用的文献

1
The impact of Morse taper implant design on microleakage at implant-healing abutment interface.莫氏锥度种植体设计对种植体-愈合基台界面微渗漏的影响。
Dent Mater J. 2022 Oct 2;41(5):767-773. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2022-022. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
2
Sealing Efficacy of the Original and Third-Party Custom-Made Abutments-Microbiological In Vitro Pilot Study.原装与第三方定制基台的封闭效果——微生物体外初步研究
Materials (Basel). 2022 Feb 21;15(4):1597. doi: 10.3390/ma15041597.
3
A systematic review of the use of titanium versus stainless steel implants for fracture fixation.
关于使用钛合金与不锈钢植入物进行骨折固定的系统评价。
OTA Int. 2021 Aug 18;4(3):e138. doi: 10.1097/OI9.0000000000000138. eCollection 2021 Sep.
4
The Influence of Connection on the Microleakage Development of Implant- Supported Fixed Bridges.连接对种植体支持固定桥微渗漏发展的影响。
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2021 May 28;29(2):112-118. doi: 10.1922/EJPRD_2145vonmaltzahn07.
5
Efficacy of Local Minocycline Agents in Treating Peri-Implantitis: An Experimental In Vivo Study in Beagle Dogs.局部米诺环素制剂治疗种植体周围炎的疗效：比格犬体内实验研究
Pharmaceutics. 2020 Oct 23;12(11):1016. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12111016.
6
Sealing agent reduces formation of single and dual-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis on screw joints at the abutment/implant interface.封口剂减少了在基台/种植体界面的螺丝连接处白色念珠菌和粪肠球菌的单种和双种生物膜的形成。
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 22;14(10):e0223148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223148. eCollection 2019.
7
In Vitro Comparison of Microbial Leakage of the Implant-Healing Abutment Interface in Four Connection Systems.四种连接系统中种植体-愈合基台界面微生物渗漏的体外比较
J Oral Implantol. 2019 Oct;45(5):350-355. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00311. Epub 2019 Aug 7.
8
Sealing capability and marginal fit of titanium versus zirconia abutments with different connection designs.不同连接设计的钛基台与氧化锆基台的封闭能力和边缘适合性。
J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;11(2):105-111. doi: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.105. Epub 2019 Apr 26.
9
General review of titanium toxicity.钛毒性综述。
Int J Implant Dent. 2019 Mar 11;5(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0162-x.
10
Mechanical Outcomes, Microleakage, and Marginal Accuracy at the Implant-Abutment Interface of Original versus Nonoriginal Implant Abutments: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.机械性能、微渗漏和种植体-基台界面边缘适合性的原始与非原始种植体基台的体外研究的系统评价。
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Dec 30;2018:2958982. doi: 10.1155/2018/2958982. eCollection 2018.