Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors
Retrospective Study of Short Versus Standard Posterior Implants and Analysis of Implant Failure Risk Factors
复制标题
短后牙种植体与标准后牙种植体的回顾性研究以及种植体失败风险因素分析
DOI：
10.11607/jomi.8930
复制
发表时间：
2021-11-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
He, Fuming
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang, Yu;Jiang, Jin;He, Fuming
目的：比较短种植体（8 毫米）与标准种植体（> 8 毫米、< 10 毫米）的临床和影像学结果，并揭示影响短种植体种植失败的风险因素。材料和方法：在存活率、生物和机械并发症以及边缘骨丢失方面比较短种植体和标准种植体。为了分析短种植体种植体失败的风险因素，考虑了几个变量，包括性别、年龄、时间间隔、牙弓、种植体品牌、额外手术、修复体材料、修复体、吸烟状况和冠根比。结果：对321颗短种植体和136颗标准种植体进行了回顾性随访，随访时间12～104个月，短种植体平均40个月（3.33年），标准种植体平均34个月（2.83年）。在基于种植体的分析中，短种植体的存活率为 95.6%，在基于患者的分析中，短种植体的存活率为 94.9%，标准种植体的存活率分别为 96.3% 和 94.0%。短种植体和标准种植体在存活率、并发症或边缘骨丢失方面没有观察到统计学上的显着差异。平均 38 个月（3.17 年）的种植体失败率为 4.2%，总种植体失败率为 5.4%。在分析短种植体存活率的危险因素时，与夹板短种植体相比，单个短种植体的失败率更高，而标准种植体没有发现显着的变化。结论：短种植体往往是萎缩后牙区的可靠替代方案。夹板修复体更适合短种植体修复。
Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of short implants 8 mm) vs standard implants (> 8 mm, < 10 mm) and to uncover risk factors influencing implant failure in short implants. Materials and Methods: Short and standard implants were compared in the aspect of survival rates, biologic and mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss. To analyze risk factors of implant failure in short implants, several variables were taken into consideration, including sex, age, time interval, arch, implant brand, additional surgery, prosthesis material, restoration, smoking status, and crown-root ratio. Results: Three hundred twenty-one short implants and 136 standard implants were retrospectively followed up from 12 to 104 months with an average of 40 months (3.33 years) in short implants and 34 months (2.83 years) in standard implants. The survival rates of short implants were 95.6% at the implant-based analysis and 94.9% at the patient-based analysis, and rates of 96.3% and 94.0%, respectively, were calculated for standard implants. No statistically significant differences were observed between short and standard implants with respect to survival rate, complications, or marginal bone loss. The failure rates were 4.2% for implants and 5.4% for patients in total implants with an average of 38 months (3.17 years). In analyzing risk factors of short implants for survival rate, single short implants resulted in a higher failure rate compared with splinted short implants, while no significant variable was found in standard implants. Conclusion: Short implants tend to be a reliable alternative in atrophic posterior regions. Splinted prostheses were more ideal for short implant restorations.