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.
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.
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。
Zotero 插件