Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2012
Implants in reconstructed bone: a comparative study on the outcome of Straumann® tissue level and bone level implants placed in vertically deficient alveolar ridges treated by means of autogenous onlay bone grafts.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chiapasco Matteo, Casentini Paolo, Zaniboni Marco
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate: (1) the survival rate of Straumann® Tissue Level and Bone Level implants placed in atrophic edentulous jaws previously reconstructed by means of autogenous onlay bone grafts; (2) to compare peri-implant bone resorption values over time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2010, 50 patients presenting with vertical or tridimensional defects of the edentulous ridges were treated with autogenous bone grafts. Three to 7 months afterward, 192 implants were placed (Group A: 97 Tissue Level implants; Group B: 95 Bone Level implants) in the reconstructed areas. After a further waiting period of 2 to 3 months, patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 68 months after the start of prosthetic loading (mean: 33 months).
RESULTS: No implants were removed (survival rate: 100%), but in Group B 13 implants (8 placed in iliac grafts, 2 placed in ramus grafts, and 3 placed in calvarial grafts) presented peri-implant bone resorption values higher than those proposed by Albrektsson and colleagues. for successful implants: the overall implant success rate was then 100% for Group A and 86.8% for Group B. No prosthetic failures were recorded, thus leading to a 100% prostheses success rate.
CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found between the two types of implants as far as implant survival rate is concerned, but results from this study seem to demonstrate that Tissue Level implants may present better long-term results in terms of peri-implant bone maintenance, as compared with Bone Level implants, when placed in reconstructed areas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2010, 50 patients presenting with vertical or tridimensional defects of the edentulous ridges were treated with autogenous bone grafts. Three to 7 months afterward, 192 implants were placed (Group A: 97 Tissue Level implants; Group B: 95 Bone Level implants) in the reconstructed areas. After a further waiting period of 2 to 3 months, patients were rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses. The follow-up ranged from 12 to 68 months after the start of prosthetic loading (mean: 33 months).
RESULTS: No implants were removed (survival rate: 100%), but in Group B 13 implants (8 placed in iliac grafts, 2 placed in ramus grafts, and 3 placed in calvarial grafts) presented peri-implant bone resorption values higher than those proposed by Albrektsson and colleagues. for successful implants: the overall implant success rate was then 100% for Group A and 86.8% for Group B. No prosthetic failures were recorded, thus leading to a 100% prostheses success rate.
CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found between the two types of implants as far as implant survival rate is concerned, but results from this study seem to demonstrate that Tissue Level implants may present better long-term results in terms of peri-implant bone maintenance, as compared with Bone Level implants, when placed in reconstructed areas.