International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2020
Bone modifications around porous trabecular implants inserted with or without primary stability 2 months after tooth extraction: A 3-year controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bianconi Stefano, Wang Hom-Lay, Testori Tiziano, Fontanella Fabrizio, Del Fabbro Massimo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Implant primary stability has long been considered a prerequisite for successful osseointegration. However, achieving stability may be difficult when placing implants in wide postextractive bone defects. The purpose of this study was to conduct a clinical and radiographic investigation of bone modifications at porous-structured implants inserted with or without primary stability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty porous-structured implants were inserted in the posterior sockets of 50 consecutive patients 2 months after tooth extraction, combined with allogeneic bone and a resorbable membrane. The implants were divided into two groups according to insertion torque: spinner (spinning at 35 Ncm, n = 23) and stable (stable at 35 Ncm, n = 27). Implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis from baseline to 6-month function. Follow-up took place 3 years after implant placement.
RESULTS: At baseline, the implant stability quotient was undetectable in the spinner group and averaged 75.07 ± 5.84 in the stable group. At uncovering, the implant stability quotient increased to 71.33 ± 4.42 and 77.97 ± 3.30 in the spinner and stable group, respectively (P < 0.001). After 6 months of loading, no between-group difference in implant stability quotient was found (P = 0.13). Marginal bone level changes were similar between groups at all follow-ups, averaging -0.41 ± 0.77 mm and -0.15 ± 0.53 mm at 36-month follow-up in the spinner and stable group, respectively (P = 0.35). No implant failed throughout the observation period. Neither biological nor mechanical complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: Implants with a moderately rough surface and a porous-structured body may osseointegrate even without primary stability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty porous-structured implants were inserted in the posterior sockets of 50 consecutive patients 2 months after tooth extraction, combined with allogeneic bone and a resorbable membrane. The implants were divided into two groups according to insertion torque: spinner (spinning at 35 Ncm, n = 23) and stable (stable at 35 Ncm, n = 27). Implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis from baseline to 6-month function. Follow-up took place 3 years after implant placement.
RESULTS: At baseline, the implant stability quotient was undetectable in the spinner group and averaged 75.07 ± 5.84 in the stable group. At uncovering, the implant stability quotient increased to 71.33 ± 4.42 and 77.97 ± 3.30 in the spinner and stable group, respectively (P < 0.001). After 6 months of loading, no between-group difference in implant stability quotient was found (P = 0.13). Marginal bone level changes were similar between groups at all follow-ups, averaging -0.41 ± 0.77 mm and -0.15 ± 0.53 mm at 36-month follow-up in the spinner and stable group, respectively (P = 0.35). No implant failed throughout the observation period. Neither biological nor mechanical complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: Implants with a moderately rough surface and a porous-structured body may osseointegrate even without primary stability.