Suppr超能文献

内连接与外连接种植体的边缘骨吸收比较:6年随访的回顾性临床研究

Marginal Bone Loss Compared in Internal and External Implant Connections: Retrospective Clinical Study at 6-Years Follow-Up.

作者信息

D'Orto Bianca, Chiavenna Carlo, Leone Renato, Longoni Martina, Nagni Matteo, Capparè Paolo

机构信息

Dental School, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics, "Federico II" University of Naples, 80100 Naples, Italy.

出版信息

Biomedicines. 2023 Apr 8;11(4):1128. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11041128.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the marginal bone loss between two different categories of implants (Winsix, Biosafin, Ancona, Italy) having the same diameter and belonging to the Torque Type (TT) line, in the internal hexagon version (TTi, Group A) and in the external hexagon configuration (TTx, Group B). Patients with one or more straight implants (insertion parallel to the occlusal plane) in the molar and premolar regions in association with tooth extraction at least 4 months prior to implant insertion, who have a fixture diameter of 3.8 mm, who followed up for at least 6 years, and whose radiographic records were available were enrolled in this study. Depending on implant connections (externally or internally), the sample was divided into groups A and B. For externally connected implants (66), the marginal resorption was 1.1 ± 0.17 mm. The subgroup of single and bridge implants showed no statistically significant differences with a marginal bone resorption of 1.07 ± 0.15 mm and 1.1 ± 0.17 mm, respectively. Internally connected implants (69) showed an overall marginal resorption of 0.91 ± 0.17 mm, while the subgroup of single and bridge implants showed resorption of 0.90 ± 0.19 mm and 0.90 ± 0.17 mm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences. According to the obtained results, internally connected implants showed less marginal bone resorption than externally connected implants.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估和比较两种不同类别的种植体(意大利安科纳的Winsix、Biosafin)之间的边缘骨吸收情况,这两种种植体直径相同,属于扭矩型(TT)系列,分别为内六角型(TTi,A组)和外六角型(TTx,B组)。本研究纳入了在磨牙和前磨牙区域有一个或多个直形种植体(种植体植入方向与咬合平面平行)、在种植体植入前至少4个月已拔牙、种植体直径为3.8 mm、随访至少6年且有影像学记录的患者。根据种植体连接方式(外部或内部),将样本分为A组和B组。对于外部连接的种植体(66颗),边缘吸收为1.1±0.17 mm。单颗种植体和桥体种植体亚组的边缘骨吸收分别为1.07±0.15 mm和1.1±0.17 mm,无统计学显著差异。内部连接的种植体(69颗)总体边缘吸收为0.91±0.17 mm,而单颗种植体和桥体种植体亚组的吸收分别为0.90±0.19 mm和0.90±0.17 mm,无统计学显著差异。根据所得结果,内部连接的种植体边缘骨吸收比外部连接的种植体少。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

2
Dental Implants: Enhancing Biological Response Through Surface Modifications.种植牙:通过表面改性增强生物响应。
Dent Clin North Am. 2022 Oct;66(4):627-642. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2022.05.009. Epub 2022 Sep 11.
4
Contemporary Concepts in Osseointegration of Dental Implants: A Review.当代口腔种植体骨整合概念:综述。
Biomed Res Int. 2022 Jun 14;2022:6170452. doi: 10.1155/2022/6170452. eCollection 2022.

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