Boerrigter E M, van Oort R P, Raghoebar G M, Stegenga B, Schoen P J, Boering G
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Oral Rehabil. 1997 Mar;24(3):182-90.
In a controlled clinical trial, treatment effects of mandibular overdentures on two different implant-systems in edentulous patients were compared one year after insertion of the new dentures. The implant-systems used were the Brånemark system (Brå) and the IMZ-system. Treatment was randomly assigned to 60 patients according to a balanced allocation method. Evaluation included peri-implant and radiographical parameters. According to the Delphi method a clinical implant performance scale (CIP) was constructed based on all conceivable complications of the different implant systems. During the osseointegration period, five Brå- and one IMZ-implants were lost. The results of one of the peri-implant parameters and the radiographical score showed significant differences considering the (pseudo) pocket probing depth (Brå better than IMZ, P < 0.001) and the radiographic-score (IMZ better than Brå, P < 0.003). The results for the CIP-scale were less favourable for the Brå-group than for the IMZ-group; however, these differences were not significant.
在一项对照临床试验中,对无牙患者使用两种不同种植系统的下颌覆盖义齿在新义齿植入一年后的治疗效果进行了比较。所使用的种植系统为布伦马克系统(Brå)和IMZ系统。根据均衡分配方法将治疗随机分配给60名患者。评估包括种植体周围和影像学参数。根据德尔菲法,基于不同种植系统所有可能的并发症构建了临床种植体性能量表(CIP)。在骨整合期,5枚Brå种植体和1枚IMZ种植体丢失。考虑到(假性)袋探诊深度(Brå优于IMZ,P<0.001)和影像学评分(IMZ优于Brå,P<0.003),其中一项种植体周围参数和影像学评分结果显示出显著差异。CIP量表的结果对Brå组不如对IMZ组有利;然而,这些差异并不显著。