MedElevator
Войти в исследования Polski merkuriusz lekarski : organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego · 2024
Clinical efficiency and stability of surface-modified implants: acid modification versus photoactivation.
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.
Terekhov Serhii S, Proshchenko Andriy M, Proshchenko Nina S, Shorikova Dina V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: . Aim: To study the stability of surface-modified dental implants, with the usage of sandblasting/acid modification vs. photoactivation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: In the observation were included 164 patients with dental defects. All patients had digital impressions taken by scanning the oral cavity with an intraoral scanner 3Shape TRIOSR. Group A (80 subjects) included implants whose surface was modified with a combination of sandblasting and acid. Group B (84 subjects) - implants after modification with photoactivation. The implant stability quotient was recorded using an Osstell MentorTM device.
RESULTS: Results: The reliable effectiveness of the photoactivation method in complex treatment of the surface of dental implants in improving the stability of fixed dentures in the short and long-term periods of observation was proven. When assessing immediate clinical outcomes, there was no significant difference in the frequency of hyperemia, algesia, hyperthermia, soft tissue edema, regional lymphadenitis, depending on the classical method of treating the implant surface and the complex method with photoactivation. Of the long-term clinical outcomes with classical surface treatment, the absolute risk of implant failure was 1.2%, relative risk - 0,99 [CI%0,96-1,0]. The average value of the implant stability coefficient (ISQ) and the data of the Periotest study at the time of surgery probably did not differ in the observation groups, after 3 months, a higher index was proven in the treatment of the surface by the method of photoactivation and greater stability of the mandibular implants. At the time of implantation, there were no statistically significant differences in implant fixation between the groups, however, during prospective observation in group A, secondary stability indicators based on periotestometry results were significantly lower.
CONCLUSION: Conclusions: It was proved the reliable effectiveness of the photoactivation-method for surface modification in the short and long-term periods of observation for improving the results of orthodontically treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: In the observation were included 164 patients with dental defects. All patients had digital impressions taken by scanning the oral cavity with an intraoral scanner 3Shape TRIOSR. Group A (80 subjects) included implants whose surface was modified with a combination of sandblasting and acid. Group B (84 subjects) - implants after modification with photoactivation. The implant stability quotient was recorded using an Osstell MentorTM device.
RESULTS: Results: The reliable effectiveness of the photoactivation method in complex treatment of the surface of dental implants in improving the stability of fixed dentures in the short and long-term periods of observation was proven. When assessing immediate clinical outcomes, there was no significant difference in the frequency of hyperemia, algesia, hyperthermia, soft tissue edema, regional lymphadenitis, depending on the classical method of treating the implant surface and the complex method with photoactivation. Of the long-term clinical outcomes with classical surface treatment, the absolute risk of implant failure was 1.2%, relative risk - 0,99 [CI%0,96-1,0]. The average value of the implant stability coefficient (ISQ) and the data of the Periotest study at the time of surgery probably did not differ in the observation groups, after 3 months, a higher index was proven in the treatment of the surface by the method of photoactivation and greater stability of the mandibular implants. At the time of implantation, there were no statistically significant differences in implant fixation between the groups, however, during prospective observation in group A, secondary stability indicators based on periotestometry results were significantly lower.
CONCLUSION: Conclusions: It was proved the reliable effectiveness of the photoactivation-method for surface modification in the short and long-term periods of observation for improving the results of orthodontically treatment.