两种不同连接配置种植体的临床和影像学结果评估：一项对照试验
Assessment of Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Implant with Two Different Connections Con iguration: A Controlled Trial.
作者信息
Mangalvedhekar Madhura, Manas Abhigyan, Jyothirmayee K, Tenglikar Pavan, Das Abhaya Chandra
机构信息
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, PMNM Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India.
Department of Dentistry, UP University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Utter Pradesh, India.
出版信息
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S974-S976. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_806_21. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study is to compare two different implant designs having different neck configuration and neck interfaces.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fifty subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, each containing 25 subjects. In Group I, conical connection (CC) (Nobel Biocare) with back-tapered collar dental implant and in Group II, external-hexagon (EH) (Nobel Biocare) with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface dental implant was used. Radiographic marginal bone crest level and marginal bone loss (MBL) were compared.
RESULTS
A significant less MBL was seen in Group I compared to Group II recorded at different intervals of time ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CC implants with back-tapered collar exhibited less MBL as compared to EH implants with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface.
目的
本研究的目的是比较两种具有不同颈部结构和颈部界面的不同种植体设计。
材料与方法
50名受试者被随机分为2组，每组25名受试者。第一组使用带有后锥形颈部的锥形连接（CC）（诺贝尔生物保健公司）牙科种植体，第二组使用带有平面到平面种植体-基台界面的外六角形（EH）（诺贝尔生物保健公司）牙科种植体。比较影像学上的边缘骨嵴水平和边缘骨丢失（MBL）。
结果
在不同时间间隔记录时，第一组的MBL明显低于第二组（<0.05）。
结论
与具有平面到平面种植体-基台界面的EH种植体相比，带有后锥形颈部的CC种植体表现出更少的MBL。
Zotero 插件