Marginal bone loss and the risk indicators of fixed screw‐retained implant‐supported prostheses and fixed telescopic‐retained implant‐supported prostheses in full arch: A retrospective case control study
Marginal bone loss and the risk indicators of fixed screw‐retained implant‐supported prostheses and fixed telescopic‐retained implant‐supported prostheses in full arch: A retrospective case control study
复制标题
全牙弓固定螺钉固位种植体支持假体和固定伸缩固位种植体支持假体的边缘骨丢失和风险指标：回顾性病例对照研究
DOI：
10.1111/clr.13750
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Yajima Yasutomo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oda Yukari;Mori Gentaro;Honma Shinya;Ito Taichi;Iijima Toshikazu;Yajima Yasutomo
ObjectivesThis study compared full-arch screw-retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthetic prosthesis（FSI-FDPs）and full-arch telescopic-retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis with a professional retrieval system（FTI-FDPs）on marginal bone loss（MBL），risk indicators and prosthetic ritis rate after 7-13 years. FSI-FDP组包括26例患者（32件假体，202个种植体），FTI-FDP组包括39例患者（54件假体，390个种植体）。评估MBL和MBL≥1 mm的风险指标。结果全牙弓螺钉固位种植体支持的固定义齿和FTI-FDP种植体的平均MBL分别为0.60 ± 0.51和0.41 ± 1.03 mm。25%的FSI-FDP种植体和6.9%的FTI-FDP种植体的MBL≥1 mm。上部结构-基台连接（螺钉固位：FSI‐ FDP>套筒固位：FTI‐ FDP）和种植体-基台连接（外对接，内对接>莫尔斯锥形接头）与MBL≥1 mm相关。FSI-FDP组种植体水平的种植体周围炎发生率为3.99%（95%CI = 3.93-20.5），FTI-FDP组为3.85%（95%CI = 3.85-34.3），无显著性差异。结论FSI-FDP和FTI-FDP种植体显示出相当的MBL;然而，FTI-FDP中MBL ≥1 mm的风险低于FSI-FDP。种植体-基台连接是MBL ≥1 mm的风险指标。在种植体炎发生率方面，FSI‐ FDP和FTI‐ FDP表现相似。
ObjectivesThis study compared full‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FSI‐FDPs) and full‐arch telescopic‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses with a professional retrieval system (FTI‐FDPs) on marginal bone loss (MBL), the risk indicators and peri‐implantitis rate after 7–13 years.Material and methodsSixty five edentulous patients were treated with 86 prostheses and 592 implants. The FSI‐FDP group comprised 26 patients (32 prostheses, 202 implants), and the FTI‐FDP group comprised 39 patients (54 prostheses, 390 implants). MBL and the risk indicators of MBL≥1 mm were assessed. Peri‐implantitis rates at 13 years were also calculated.ResultsFull‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and FTI‐FDP implants exhibited comparable mean MBLs of 0.60 ± 0.51 and 0.41 ± 1.03 mm, respectively. MBL≥1 mm was noted for 25% of FSI‐FDP implants and 6.9% of FTI‐FDP implants. Superstructure–abutment connection (screw retention:FSI‐FDPs >telescopic retention:FTI‐FDPs) and implant–abutment connection (External butt joint, Internal butt joint >Morse taper joint) were associated with MBL≥1 mm. Peri‐implantitis rates at the implant level were 3.99% (95%CI = 3.93–20.5) in FSI‐FDP group and 3.85% (95%CI = 3.85–34.3) in FTI‐FDP group with no significance.ConclusionsIt was concluded that FSI‐FDP and FTI‐FDP implants exhibited comparable MBL; however, the risk of MBL ≥1 mm in FTI‐FDPs was lower than in FSI‐FDPs. Besides, implant–abutment connection was the risk indicator of MBL ≥1 mm. In peri‐implantitis rate, FSI‐FDPs and FTI‐FDPs behave similarly.