Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Two Implants with Different Prosthetic Interfaces and Neck Configurations: Randomized, Controlled, Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Two Implants with Different Prosthetic Interfaces and Neck Configurations: Randomized, Controlled, Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00465.x
复制
发表时间：
2014-02-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Barlattani, Alberto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pozzi, Alessandro;Agliardi, Enrico;Barlattani, Alberto
背景资料：种植体周围骨丢失似乎发生在种植体放置/负载后，无论如何努力消除它。一些因素，包括手术创伤，生物宽度建立，上部结构缺乏被动配合，种植体-基台微间隙和咬合超负荷，可能会增加种植体周围骨丢失。多年来，新的界面设计被引入，临床研究表明，内部锥形连接和平台移位可能有利于边缘骨保留。用途：在一项随机、对照、裂口临床试验中，比较两种具有不同假体界面和颈部配置的种植体设计的临床和影像学结局。材料与方法：34例部分缺牙患者随机接受至少一个内圆锥连接（带后锥形领和平台移位设计）或外六边形种植体（带平面对平面种植体-基台界面）。主要终点是不同时间点的种植体周围骨水平变化、种植体和/或修复体失败、任何并发症、种植体稳定性商数（ISQ）值和牙周参数。结果：无脱落。边缘骨变化具有统计学显著性差异，内圆锥连接的结果更好。没有观察到种植体和假体失效，累积存活率为100%。两种种植体的ISQ值都很高，并且在每个时间点的干预措施之间的ISQ平均值没有统计学显著差异（p> 0.05）。所有种植体在1年功能访视时均未显示探诊出血和极少量斑块。结论：研究的两种种植体设计在失效率方面表现相似，在加载后1年内获得了成功结果。锥形连接和内置平台移位的后锥形颈配置显示边缘骨丢失比平面-平面种植体-基台界面和外六角形连接的直颈配置在统计学上更低。
Background: Peri-implant bone loss seems to occur following implant placement/loading regardless of all the efforts to eliminate it. Several factors, including surgical trauma, biologic width establishment, lack of passive fit of the superstructures, implant-abutment microgap, and occlusal overloading, may increase peri-implant bone loss. Over the years, new interface designs were introduced and clinical studies suggest that internal conical connection and platform shifting may be advantageous for marginal bone preservation. Purpose: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes of two implant designs with different prosthetic interfaces and neck configurations in a randomized, controlled, split-mouth clinical trial. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four partially edentate patients randomly received at least one internal conical connection with back-tapered collar and platform shifting design or external-hexagon implants with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface. Primary end point was peri-implant bone level changes at different time points, failures of implants and/or prosthesis, any complications, implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, and periodontal parameters. Results: No dropout occurred. Marginal bone changes were statistically significantly different with better results for the internal conical connection. No implants and prosthesis failures have been observed, yielding a cumulative survival rate of 100%. A high ISQ value was found for both implants, and no statistically significant difference was found for ISQ mean values between interventions at each time point (p>.05). All implants showed no bleeding on probing and a very slight amount of plaque at the 1-year-in-function visit. Conclusions: Both implant designs investigated performed similarly in terms of failure rates, providing successful results up to 1 year after loading. The back-tapered neck configuration with conical connection and built-in platform shifting showed statistically lower marginal bone loss than straight neck configuration with flat-to-flat implant-abutment interface and external-hexagonal connection.