Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw.
Effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw.
复制标题
后牙区额外安装种植体对无牙颌下颌治疗预后的影响。
DOI：
10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00958.x
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
E. Yamauchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Y. Miyamoto;K. Fujisawa;M. Takechi;Y. Momota;T. Yuasa;S. Tatehara;M. Nagayama;E. Yamauchi
本研究的目的是阐明在后部区域额外安装种植体对无牙颌治疗预后的影响。选择了15名在无牙下颌骨植入种植体（Brånemark系统，Nobel Biocare，Gotebörg，Sweden）并在安装种植体锚定固定修复体后完成1年随访的患者。在7名患者（A组）中，在颏孔之间安装了4个或5个种植体，在8名患者（P组）中，除了在颏孔之间安装种植体外，还在后部区域安装了1个或2个种植体，每侧1个。两组的所有种植体均实现了骨结合。在A组中，加载后没有种植体丢失。P组5例患者在加载后1年内有6个种植体丢失。均位于后区。为了阐明P组后部区域的种植体在加载后的失效率是否特别高，还将失效率与同期安装在下颌骨后部区域以支持种植体锚定固定部分假体的89个种植体进行了比较（C组）。P组种植体的累积存活率为60%，而C组种植体的累积存活率为100%（P<0.001）。当比较两组相同长度的后路种植体的存活率时，仅7 mm和10 mm长度的种植体存在显著差异。这些数据表明，P组中的后路植入物风险更大。下颌移动导致的下颌骨变形被认为是种植体丢失的最可能原因。因此，当选择这种改良治疗时，应谨慎进行。
The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of the additional installation of implants in the posterior region on the prognosis of treatment in the edentulous mandibular jaw. Fifteen patients who had received implants (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare, Gotebörg, Sweden) in the edentulous mandible and completed a 1-year follow-up after the fitting of implant-anchored fixed prostheses were selected. In seven patients (Group A), four or five implants were installed between the mental foramina, and in eight patients (Group P), one or two implants, one on each side, were installed in the posterior regions in addition to the implants between the foramina. All implants of both groups achieved osseointegration. In Group A, there was no implant loss after loading. Six implants were lost in five patients of Group P within 1 year after loading. All of them were located in the posterior region. To elucidate whether or not the failure rate of the implants in the posterior region of Group P after loading was especially high, the failures were also compared with 89 implants, which were installed in the posterior region of the mandibles to support implant-anchored fixed partial prosthesis, during the same period (Group C). The cumulative survival rate of the implants of Group P was 60%, while that of the implants of Group C was 100% (P<0.001). When the survival rates of posterior implants with the same length of the two groups were compared, there were significant differences for the 7- and 10-mm-length implants only. These data demonstrate that the posterior implants in Group P are at greater risk. Deformation of the mandible due to jaw movement was thought to be the most likely cause of the implant loss. Therefore, when such modified treatment is chosen, it should be performed with meticulous attention.