A retrospective study of the survival of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants.
A retrospective study of the survival of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants.
复制标题
光滑和粗糙表面牙种植体存活率的回顾性研究。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Weaver
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ayman A Balshe;D. Assad;S. Eckert;S. Koka;A. Weaver
目的
比较光滑和粗糙表面牙种植体的时间依赖性累积存活率。
材料和方法
对两个时间段进行了回顾性病历审查：1991年1月1日至1996年12月31日，使用光滑表面种植体; 2001年1月1日至2005年12月31日，使用粗糙表面种植体。本研究包括在两个时间范围内在一个机构放置和修复的所有种植体。收集了与患者年龄、性别、种植体直径、种植体长度和种植体解剖位置相关的数据。为了便于比较，第一和第二时间段的植入物分别随访至1998年年中和2007年年中。使用边缘考克斯比例风险模型（根据年龄和性别调整）评价患者/植入物特征与植入物生存率的关联，并总结风险比和相应的95%置信区间。
结果
共593名患者在1991年至1996年期间，322名女性和271名男性（平均年龄51.3 ± 18.5岁）接受了2，182例光滑表面种植体，（539名女性和366名男性;平均年龄48.2 ± 17.8岁）在2001年至2005年期间接受了2,425例粗糙表面种植体。种植体植入后5年，光滑和粗糙表面种植体的存活率分别为94.0%和94.5%（差异不显著）。在光滑种植体中，种植体长度≤ 10 mm和解剖位置与种植体失败显著相关。相比之下，在粗糙种植体中，种植体长度≤ 10 mm和解剖位置未被确定为种植体失败的风险因素。
结论
基于对两组不同种植体表面的患者以及每组2,000多个种植体的回顾性研究，光滑表面和粗糙表面牙种植体的存活率没有显著差异。解剖位置和种植体长度<或= 10 mm仅与光滑表面种植体的失败相关。
PURPOSE
To compare the time-dependent cumulative survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective chart review was conducted for two time periods: January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1996, during which smooth-surface implants were used, and January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2005, during which rough-surface implants were used. This study included all implants placed and restored in one institution during the two time frames. Data were collected relative to patient age, gender, implant diameter, implant length, and anatomic location of implants. To facilitate the comparison, implants from the first and second time periods were followed through mid-1998 and mid-2007, respectively. Associations of patient/implant characteristics with implant survival were evaluated using marginal Cox proportional hazards models (adjusted for age and gender) and summarized with hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 593 patients (322 women and 271 men; mean age, 51.3 +/- 18.5 years) received 2,182 smooth-surface implants between 1991 and 1996, while 905 patients (539 women and 366 men; mean age, 48.2 +/- 17.8 years) received 2,425 rough-surface implants between 2001 and 2005. At 5 years after implant placement, survival rates were 94.0% and 94.5%, respectively, for smooth- and rough-surface implants (difference not significant). Among the smooth implants, implant length <or= 10 mm and anatomic location were identified as significantly associated with implant failure. In contrast, among the rough implants, implant length <or= 10 mm and anatomic location were not identified as risk factors for implant failure.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this retrospective study of two groups of patients with different implant surfaces and more than 2,000 implants in each group, there was no significant difference in the survival rates of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. Anatomic location and implant length <or= 10 mm were associated with failures of the smooth-surface implants only.