Marcantonio Ana Carolina Monachini, de Oliveira Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes, Tassi Paulo Afonso, Manfrinato João Paulo Lavagnoli, Segnini Bruno, de Souza Bezerra Araújo Raphael Ferreira, Trojan Larissa Carvalho, Fontão Flávia Noemy Gasparini Kiatake, de Mattias Sartori Ivete Aparecida, Sartori Elisa Mattias, Padovan Luis Eduardo Marques, Zandim-Barcelos Daniela Leal, Marcantonio Elcio
Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, School of Dentistry at Araraquara, Univ. Est. Paulista/UNESP, Araraquara, Brazil.
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry at Uberlândia, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025 Feb;27(1):e13392. doi: 10.1111/cid.13392. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
This study evaluates the clinical performance of implants with hydrophilic surface and two different macrostructures: cylindrical with perforating triangular threads (CT) and cylindrical-tapered with the association of square and condensing and perforating triangular threads (TST).
This was a multicenter split-mouth, simple-blinded, randomized, and controlled trial. Thirty patients with edentulous mandible received two CT and two TST implants. Primary stability was determined by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Implants were loaded with full fixed-arch prostheses within 24 h after insertion. Clinical parameters (visible plaque index, marginal bleeding index; bleeding on probing; probing depth; and clinical attachment level) and the RFA were assessed at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after implant loading. Marginal bone level changes were measured by comparison of standardized radiographs taken on the day of implant placement and 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter.
Twenty-eight patients completed the 2-year follow-up. The survival rates were 99.16% for CT implants and 100% for TST implants. One CT implant was lost until the 2 months follow-up. No significant differences were found between the two implant types for marginal bone level changes (CT 0.34 [0.24; 0.55 mm]; 0.33 [0.18; 0.55 mm]; 0.41 [0.12; 0.7 mm] vs TST 0.36 [0.14; 0.74 mm]; 0.33 [0.23; 0.63 mm]; 0.30 [0.20; 0.64 mm] at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively) and other clinical parameters.
The macrostructure of the implants had no influence on survival rate, primary and secondary stability, marginal bone level changes, and peri-implant clinical parameters outcomes. Both implants can be predictably used for immediate loading of full-arch mandibular prostheses.
本研究评估具有亲水性表面和两种不同宏观结构的种植体的临床性能：带有穿孔三角螺纹的圆柱形（CT）和带有方形、凝聚形及穿孔三角螺纹组合的圆柱 - 锥形（TST）。
这是一项多中心、分口、单盲、随机对照试验。30例下颌无牙患者接受了两颗CT种植体和两颗TST种植体。通过植入扭矩和共振频率分析（RFA）确定初期稳定性。种植体植入后24小时内用全固定牙弓假体进行加载。在种植体加载后2、6、12和24个月评估临床参数（可见菌斑指数、边缘出血指数、探诊出血、探诊深度和临床附着水平）以及RFA。通过比较种植体植入当天及之后6、12和24个月拍摄的标准化X线片来测量边缘骨水平变化。
28例患者完成了2年随访。CT种植体的存活率为99.16%，TST种植体的存活率为100%。一颗CT种植体在2个月随访前丢失。两种种植体在边缘骨水平变化（CT分别在6、12和24个月时为0.34[0.24；0.55毫米]；0.33[0.18；0.55毫米]；0.41[0.12；0.7毫米]，TST分别为0.36[0.14；0.74毫米]；0.33[0.23；0.63毫米]；0.30[0.20；0.64毫米]）和其他临床参数方面未发现显著差异。
种植体的宏观结构对存活率、初期和二期稳定性、边缘骨水平变化以及种植体周围临床参数结果没有影响。两种种植体均可预测性地用于全牙弓下颌假体的即刻加载。
