Krishna D Murali, Gottumukkala Sruthima Nvs, Raju M Satya Narayana, Penmetsa Gautami S, Ramesh Ksv, Kumar P Mohan, Valli Vnv Satya, Manchala Bhavya
J Oral Implantol. 2025 Aug 8;51(4):346-355. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00160.
Our objective was to evaluate and compare the effects of UV photofunctionalized (UVP) dental implants on implant stability, osseointegration, and radiographical bone changes with non-UV photofunctionalized (NUVP) dental implants placed in controlled diabetics. Participants were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure proportional representation of age groups, gender, and other relevant subgroups within the controlled diabetic population. The sites were randomly allocated into UVP and NUVP groups. In the UVP group, implants were photofunctionalized in a UV activator for 20 seconds before implant placement. Crestal bone changes were measured at 3- and 9-months postimplant placement. Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests were done to analyze intragroup and intergroup comparison study data. Implant stability and osseointegration were assessed using implant stability quotient (ISQ) and osseointegration index (OSI) immediately after implant placement and 3 months postplacement. Intragroup comparison of ISQ showed significantly higher ISQ (P = <.029) in the UVP group (4.40 ± 1.89) compared with the NUVP group (2.60 ± 1.17). The mean change in implant stability from baseline to 3 months was also significantly higher (P = .29) in the UVP group (4.4 ± 1.89) compared with the NUVP group (2.6 ± 1.17). A significantly higher mean OSI (P = .032) was noted in the UVP group (1.42 ± 0.62) compared with the NUVP group (0.84 ± 0.39). On comparison of mean crestal bone changes on the distal aspect, significantly higher mean bone loss (P = .003) was noted at 9 months in the NUVP group (0.64 ± 0.18) compared with the UVP group (0.35 ± 0.08). The UVP group showed greater benefits in enhanced secondary stability, higher OSI, and less crestal bone loss compared with the NUVP group in controlled diabetic patients.
我们的目标是评估和比较紫外线光功能化（UVP）牙科植入物与非紫外线光功能化（NUVP）牙科植入物对受控糖尿病患者植入物稳定性、骨整合以及影像学骨变化的影响。采用分层随机抽样选择参与者，以确保在受控糖尿病患者群体中各年龄组、性别和其他相关亚组的比例代表性。将植入部位随机分为UVP组和NUVP组。在UVP组中，植入物在植入前于紫外线激活器中进行20秒的光功能化处理。在植入后3个月和9个月测量牙槽嵴骨变化。进行描述性统计和配对t检验以分析组内和组间比较研究数据。在植入后即刻和植入后3个月，使用植入物稳定性商数（ISQ）和骨整合指数（OSI）评估植入物稳定性和骨整合情况。ISQ的组内比较显示，UVP组（4.40±1.89）的ISQ显著高于NUVP组（2.60±1.17）（P =<.029）。与NUVP组（2.6±1.17）相比，UVP组从基线到3个月植入物稳定性的平均变化也显著更高（P =.29）（4.4±1.89）。与NUVP组（0.84±0.39）相比，UVP组的平均OSI显著更高（P =.032）（1.42±0.62）。比较远中面牙槽嵴骨变化的平均值，与UVP组（0.35±0.08）相比，NUVP组在9个月时的平均骨吸收显著更高（P =.003）（0.64±0.18）。与NUVP组相比，UVP组在受控糖尿病患者中表现出在增强二级稳定性、更高的OSI以及更少的牙槽嵴骨吸收方面具有更大优势。
