Lops Diego, Romeo Eugenio, Calza Stefano, Palazzolo Antonino, Viviani Lorenzo, Salgarello Stefano, Buffoli Barbara, Mensi Magda
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, University of Milan, 20100 Milan, Italy.
Unit of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2022 Oct 23;11(21):6243. doi: 10.3390/jcm11216243.
The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess peri-implant soft tissue health for implants restored with different prosthetic emergence profile angles.
Patients were treated with implants supporting fixed dentures and were followed for 3 years. Buccal emergence angle (EA) measured at 3 years of follow-up visits (t1) were calculated for two different groups: Group 1 (153 implants) for restorations with angle between implant axis and prosthetic emergence angle from ≥30°, and Group 2 (67 implants) for those with angle ≤30°, respectively. Image J software was used for the measurements. Moreover, peri-implant soft tissue parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed, respectively.
A total of 57 patients were included in the analysis and a total of 220 implants were examined. Mean (±SD) EA in Groups 1 and 2 was 46.4 ± 12.2 and 24.5 ± 4.7 degrees, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, a PPD difference of 0.062 mm (CI -0.041 mm; 0.164 mm) was calculated between the two groups and was not statistically significant ( = 0.238). Similar results were found for PI (OR = 0.78, CI 0.31; 1.98, = 0.599). Furthermore, GI scores of 2 and 3 were found for nine implants (5.9%) in Group 1, and for five implants in Group 2 (7.5%). A non-significant difference ( = 0.76) was found.
Peri-implant soft-tissue health does not seem to be influenced by EA itself, when a proper emergence profile is provided for implant-supported reconstructions in anterior areas.
本回顾性研究的目的是评估不同修复体龈缘轮廓角度的种植体周围软组织健康状况。
对接受种植体支持的固定义齿治疗的患者进行3年随访。在随访3年（t1）时测量两组不同修复体的颊侧龈缘角度（EA）：第1组（153颗种植体），种植体长轴与修复体龈缘角度≥30°；第2组（67颗种植体），种植体长轴与修复体龈缘角度≤30°。使用Image J软件进行测量。此外，分别评估种植体周围软组织参数，如牙周袋探诊深度（PPD）、菌斑指数（PI）和牙龈指数（GI）。
共有57例患者纳入分析，共检查220颗种植体。第1组和第2组的平均（±标准差）EA分别为46.4±12.2度和24.5±4.7度。随访3年后，两组间PPD差异为0.062mm（可信区间-0.041mm；0.164mm），差异无统计学意义（P=0.238）。PI结果相似（OR=0.78，可信区间0.31；1.98，P=0.599）。此外，第1组9颗种植体（5.9%）和第2组5颗种植体（7.5%）的GI评分为2分和3分。差异无统计学意义（P=0.76）。
在前牙区种植体支持的修复体提供适当龈缘轮廓时，种植体周围软组织健康状况似乎不受EA本身的影响。
