Shenoy Amrutha, Rohinikumar Subhasree, Maiti Subhabrata, Sivaswamy Vinay, Rajaraman Vaishnavi
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science, Saveetha University, Chennai, 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2023;33(4):53-58. doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2022042617.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare, among various implant systems, the influence of primary stability and the bone density and soft tissue biotype of the patient on the amount of peri-implant crestal bone loss after 1 year using radiography.
Included in this retrospective study were patient records of 3583 implant placements utilized from an online dental information archiving software (DIAS). Clinical and radiographic assessments were conducted concurrently with implant placement (baseline) and 1 year post surgery. Statistical analysis was done to examine the mean marginal bone loss significance in the three different implant systems groups (group I: Straumann Roxolid SLAc-tive, group II: Nobel Biocare CC, group III: Straumann SLA), different primary stability values, different bone density. and soft tissue biotype at the time of implant placement.
A significant difference was observed in the crestal bone loss with different implant systems used. Group I showed significantly lesser amounts of crestal bone loss when compared to groups II and III. However, the differences in the bone density, ISQ values, and the soft tissue biotype did not exhibit a statistically significant difference in the amount of crestal bone loss.
Significant MBL preservation for implants with Straumann SLActive when compared to Nobel Biocare CC and Straumann SLA implants. No significant changes were observed with respect to primary stability, bone density, and soft tissue thickness and no correlation among early crestal bone loss and IT, ISQ at surgery, and ISQ at reopening was observed. Straumann Roxolid SLActive implants showed less crestal bone loss probably owing to its hydrophilic surface modification. However, more studies need to be done to evaluate the same.
本回顾性研究的目的是通过影像学比较不同种植系统中，种植体植入1年后初期稳定性、患者骨密度和软组织生物型对种植体周围嵴顶骨吸收量的影响。
本回顾性研究纳入了从在线牙科信息存档软件（DIAS）中获取的3583例种植体植入的患者记录。在种植体植入时（基线）和术后1年同时进行临床和影像学评估。进行统计分析以检验三种不同种植系统组（第一组：士卓曼Roxolid SLActive，第二组：诺贝尔生物科技CC，第三组：士卓曼SLA）、不同初期稳定性值、不同骨密度以及种植体植入时软组织生物型之间平均边缘骨吸收的显著性。
使用不同种植系统时，观察到嵴顶骨吸收存在显著差异。与第二组和第三组相比，第一组的嵴顶骨吸收量显著更少。然而，骨密度、ISQ值和软组织生物型的差异在嵴顶骨吸收量方面未表现出统计学显著差异。
与诺贝尔生物科技CC和士卓曼SLA种植体相比，士卓曼SLActive种植体的边缘骨吸收显著保留。在初期稳定性、骨密度和软组织厚度方面未观察到显著变化，且未观察到早期嵴顶骨吸收与种植时的IT、ISQ以及复诊时的ISQ之间存在相关性。士卓曼Roxolid SLActive种植体显示出较少的嵴顶骨吸收，可能归因于其亲水性表面改性。然而，需要进行更多研究来对此进行评估。
