Journal of clinical periodontology · 2015
Histological analysis of loaded zirconia and titanium dental implants: an experimental study in the dog mandible.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Thoma Daniel S, Benic Goran I, Muñoz Fernando, Kohal Ralf, Sanz Martin Ignacio, Cantalapiedra Antonio González, Hämmerle Christoph H F, Jung Ronald E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and hard tissue integration of loaded zirconia implants are similar to those of a titanium implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, two one-piece zirconia implants (VC, ZD), a two-piece zirconia implant (BPI) and a control one-piece titanium implant (STM) were randomly placed. CAD/CAM crowns were cemented at 6 months. Six months later, animals were killed and histomorphometric analyses were performed, including: the level of the mucosal margin, the extent of the peri-implant mucosa, the marginal bone loss and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Means of outcomes variables were calculated together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: In general, the mucosal margin was located coronally to the implant shoulder. The buccal peri-implant mucosa ranged between 2.64 ± 0.70 mm (VC) and 3.03 ± 1.71 mm (ZD) (for all median comparisons p > 0.05). The relative marginal bone loss ranged between 0.65 ± 0.61 mm (BPI) and 1.73 ± 1.68 mm (ZD) (buccal side), and between 0.55 ± 0.37 mm (VC) and 1.69 ± 1.56 mm (ZD) (lingual side) (p > 0.05). The mean BIC ranged between 78.6% ± 17.3% (ZD) and 87.9% ± 13.6% (STM) without statistically significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: One- and two-piece zirconia rendered similar peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and osseointegration compared to titanium implants that were placed at 6 months of loading. Zirconia implants, however, exhibited a relatively high fracture rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, two one-piece zirconia implants (VC, ZD), a two-piece zirconia implant (BPI) and a control one-piece titanium implant (STM) were randomly placed. CAD/CAM crowns were cemented at 6 months. Six months later, animals were killed and histomorphometric analyses were performed, including: the level of the mucosal margin, the extent of the peri-implant mucosa, the marginal bone loss and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Means of outcomes variables were calculated together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: In general, the mucosal margin was located coronally to the implant shoulder. The buccal peri-implant mucosa ranged between 2.64 ± 0.70 mm (VC) and 3.03 ± 1.71 mm (ZD) (for all median comparisons p > 0.05). The relative marginal bone loss ranged between 0.65 ± 0.61 mm (BPI) and 1.73 ± 1.68 mm (ZD) (buccal side), and between 0.55 ± 0.37 mm (VC) and 1.69 ± 1.56 mm (ZD) (lingual side) (p > 0.05). The mean BIC ranged between 78.6% ± 17.3% (ZD) and 87.9% ± 13.6% (STM) without statistically significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: One- and two-piece zirconia rendered similar peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and osseointegration compared to titanium implants that were placed at 6 months of loading. Zirconia implants, however, exhibited a relatively high fracture rate.