Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Department Clinic-Surgical Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024 Feb;35(2):230-241. doi: 10.1111/clr.14217. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the 5 years clinical outcomes associated with implant-level connection (IL) versus abutment-level connection (AL) for implants with an internal conical connection (ICC) supporting a screw-retained fixed partial denture.
Fifty patients with 119 implants were randomly allocated to either the AL or IL group. Radiographic (Marginal bone loss) and clinical outcomes (Bleeding on Probing, probing pocket depth, plaque accumulation, incidence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis as well as prosthetic complications) were collected and compared at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the differences between groups.
Five years after treatment, the MBL change was not significantly different between the groups at any point. The MBL was 0.23 ± 0.64 mm (AL) and 0.23 ± 0.29 mm (IL). The bleeding on Probing was 44% (AL) and 45% (IL) (p = .89). The mean probing depth was 2.91 ± 1.01 mm (AL) and 3.51 ± 0.67 mm (IL). This difference between the groups was statistically significant but clinical insignificant. Presence of plaque was slightly higher (p = .06) in the IL group (34.4%) compared with the AL group (26.3%). The overall technical, biological, and prosthetic complication rates were similar between groups. None of the implants developed peri-implantitis during the entire follow-up period.
The results of this clinical trial indicated that all clinical and radiographical parameters were clinically comparable between the study groups.
本研究旨在评估种植体水平连接（IL）与基台水平连接（AL）用于支持螺丝固位固定局部义齿的内锥形连接（ICC）种植体的 5 年临床效果。
将 50 名患者的 119 个种植体随机分配至 AL 或 IL 组。收集并比较两组患者在 1、2、3 和 5 年时的影像学（边缘骨吸收）和临床结果（探诊出血、探诊深度、菌斑积累、种植体周围炎和种植体周围黏膜炎的发生率以及修复体并发症）。采用线性混合模型评估组间差异。
治疗后 5 年，两组各时间点的 MBL 变化均无显著差异。AL 组的 MBL 为 0.23±0.64mm，IL 组为 0.23±0.29mm。探诊出血率分别为 44%（AL）和 45%（IL）（p=0.89）。平均探诊深度分别为 2.91±1.01mm（AL）和 3.51±0.67mm（IL）。组间差异具有统计学意义，但临床意义不大。IL 组的菌斑检出率（34.4%）略高于 AL 组（26.3%）（p=0.06）。两组的总体技术、生物学和修复体并发症发生率相似。整个随访期间，无种植体发生种植体周围炎。
本临床试验结果表明，两组的所有临床和影像学参数均具有临床可比性。
