Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months follow-up a prospective randomized match-paired controlled trial
Impact of implant diameter on bone level changes around platform switched implants: preliminary results of 18 months follow-up a prospective randomized match-paired controlled trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02297.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Garcia, Berta
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Canullo, Luigi;Iannello, Giuliano;Garcia, Berta
目的通过前瞻性随机配对对照试验，评价种植体平台直径对平台转换（platform switching，PS）理念下种植体周围边缘骨水平的影响。材料与方法：12例患者共检查了24个种植体。所有患者均在牙槽嵴水平植入了两个相邻的种植体：直径为4.3 mm（对照组）和4.8 mm（测试组）。随机进行近远中植入位置。根据PS概念，对于修复，在对照组和试验组中分别使用3.8和4.3 mm直径的基台，结果在两组中，种植体/基台的失配为0.25 mm。用夹板固定植入物。最终修复后18个月，根尖周标准化数字X线片，以评估加载后边缘骨水平的变化。选择Wilcoxon符号秩检验来确定组间差异。结果末次随访时，对照组种植体平均骨丢失值为1.10 × mm（SD：0.47 × mm），试验组平均骨丢失值为1.09 × mm（SD：0.08 × mm）。试验组和对照组之间无统计学显著差异。结论在本研究的范围内，目前的结果表明，骨吸收主要与生物学（生物宽度重建），而不是生物力学因素（种植体平台直径）。此外，需要更大样本量的长期研究来确认平台直径对根据PS概念修复的种植体周围硬组织反应的影响。
Objective This prospective randomized match-paired controlled trial aimed to evaluate the impact of implant platform diameter on marginal bone level around implants restored according to the platform switching (PS) concept. Material and methods A total of 24 implants were examined in 12 patients. All patients received two adjacent implants inserted at the crestal level: 4.3 similar to mm (control group) and 4.8 similar to mm (test group) in diameter. Mesio-distal implant position was randomly performed. According to the PS concept, for restoration, a 3.8 and 4.3 similar to mm diameter abutment was used, respectively in the control and test groups, resulting, in both groups, with 0.25 similar to mm of implant/abutment mismatching. Implant restorations were splinted. Eighteen months after final restoration, periapical standardized digital radiographs were taken to evaluate marginal bone level alterations after loading. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was selected to identify differences between groups. Results At the last follow-up, control implants exhibited a mean bone loss value of 1.10 similar to mm (SD: 0.47 similar to mm); the test group showed a mean value of 1.09 similar to mm (SD: 0.08 similar to mm). No statistically significant differences were found between test and control groups. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, the present results suggest that bone resorption is mostly related to biologic (biologic width re-establishment) rather than to biomechanical factors (implant platform diameter). Furthermore long-term studies with a wider sample size are needed to confirm the platform diameter influence on hard tissue response around implants restored according to the PS concept.