Roos J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Gröndahl K, Albrektsson T
Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Sweden.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):504-14.
A proposed protocol and differentiated success criteria for long-term evaluation of oral implants are presented. The protocol and criteria were applied to a retrospective patient material treated during a 1-year period and followed for 5 years. The protocol comprised a two-stage analysis of the collected clinical data. First, a quantitative analysis of the outcome was made using a life table. Based on the information obtained during the follow-up, each implant was categorized into one of three groups: unaccounted for, failure, or survival. A qualitative analysis of the survival group was then performed by active testing against defined criteria. Depending on the modes of clinical and radiographic examinations and their results, surviving implants were either further assigned to one of three success grades or remained in the survival group. The data are presented in a four-field table at one level of success. Strict success criteria together with individual stability testing and radiographic examination of each consecutive implant should be used when a new implant system is evaluated or when a new application is explored. Radiography alone and more moderate success criteria may be used to document routine treatments, provided that an already well-documented implant system is studied.
本文提出了一种用于口腔种植体长期评估的方案和差异化成功标准。该方案和标准应用于一组回顾性患者资料，这些患者在1年期间接受治疗，并随访5年。该方案包括对收集到的临床数据进行两阶段分析。首先，使用生命表对结果进行定量分析。根据随访期间获得的信息，将每个种植体分为三组之一：未说明情况、失败或存活。然后，通过对照既定标准进行主动测试，对存活组进行定性分析。根据临床和影像学检查的方式及其结果，存活的种植体要么进一步分为三个成功等级之一，要么留在存活组中。数据以一个成功水平的四字段表形式呈现。在评估新的种植体系统或探索新的应用时，应使用严格的成功标准以及对每个连续种植体进行个体稳定性测试和影像学检查。如果研究的是已经有充分记录的种植体系统，则可以单独使用影像学检查和更宽松的成功标准来记录常规治疗。
