International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2025
Implant survival, peri-implant health and microbiological contamination of two-piece ceramic implants after 2 years of loading: Results from a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Giulini Mika, Kassem Nizar, Schwarz Frank, Weigl Paul, Schwiertz Andreas, Sader Robert, Lorenz Jonas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Ceramic implants are gradually becoming an alternative to standard titanium implants; however, there is still a lack of scientific data on the former. Thus, the present study was conducted to assess the clinical and microbiological performance of a two-piece ceramic implant system after a mean follow-up period of 2 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 17 patients from a collective of 21 from a private dental practice that met the inclusion criteria received 32 two-piece ceramic implants (CERALOG, BioHorizons Camlog, Basel, Switzerland). The implants were restored with single crowns or three-unit fixed partial dentures. Implant survival, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, mucosal recession/creeping, keratinised mucosa width, Papilla Presence Index, peri-implant marginal bone level and microbiological contamination were evaluated after a mean loading period of 24 months (range 12 to 41 months).
RESULTS: All implants survived and were suitable for retaining prostheses. Probing pocket depth of 3.7 mm ± 0.7 mm and bleeding on probing on 84% of implants were recorded. Sufficient keratinised mucosa width (6.6 ± 2.9 mm) was observed with no mucosal recession/creeping. The Papilla Presence Index varied between 0 and 4 with a mean value of 1.70 ± 1.07. Mean marginal bone loss was 1.2 ± 0.9 mm. Microbiological investigation revealed no statistically significant difference in the total number of bacteria between teeth and implants (P = 0.2278); however, probing pocket depth > 4 mm proved to be a significant predictor for an increased number of bacteria (P 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, the investigated two-piece ceramic implant system achieved fully satisfying functional and microbiological results. Interpretation of the clinical, radiographic and microbiological results cannot support the hypothesis that ceramic implants are less affected by peri-implant disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 17 patients from a collective of 21 from a private dental practice that met the inclusion criteria received 32 two-piece ceramic implants (CERALOG, BioHorizons Camlog, Basel, Switzerland). The implants were restored with single crowns or three-unit fixed partial dentures. Implant survival, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, mucosal recession/creeping, keratinised mucosa width, Papilla Presence Index, peri-implant marginal bone level and microbiological contamination were evaluated after a mean loading period of 24 months (range 12 to 41 months).
RESULTS: All implants survived and were suitable for retaining prostheses. Probing pocket depth of 3.7 mm ± 0.7 mm and bleeding on probing on 84% of implants were recorded. Sufficient keratinised mucosa width (6.6 ± 2.9 mm) was observed with no mucosal recession/creeping. The Papilla Presence Index varied between 0 and 4 with a mean value of 1.70 ± 1.07. Mean marginal bone loss was 1.2 ± 0.9 mm. Microbiological investigation revealed no statistically significant difference in the total number of bacteria between teeth and implants (P = 0.2278); however, probing pocket depth > 4 mm proved to be a significant predictor for an increased number of bacteria (P 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, the investigated two-piece ceramic implant system achieved fully satisfying functional and microbiological results. Interpretation of the clinical, radiographic and microbiological results cannot support the hypothesis that ceramic implants are less affected by peri-implant disease.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansProspective StudiesFemaleMaleMiddle AgedDental ImplantsCeramicsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedCrownsDental Prosthesis DesignFollow-Up StudiesAgedAdultPeriodontal IndexDenture, Partial, FixedAlveolar Bone LossPeriodontal PocketGingival RecessionDental Restoration FailureSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome