Clinical oral implants research · 2006
Comparison of early telescope loading of non-submerged ITI implants in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Landes Constantin Alexander, Kovács Adorján Ferenc
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare early dental implant loading in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients in order to accelerate masticatory function improvement and quality of life.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fourteen non-submerged interforaminal ITI implants were early loaded in 30 patients after 3 weeks in situ (telescoped overdenture). Nineteen patients received 72 implants (63%) after local irradiation; 11 non-irradiated patients received 42 implants (37%) with a 24-month follow-up.
RESULTS: At 24 month follow-up, one early failure had occurred in an irradiated patient (=99% functioning implants in situ). Peri-implant bleeding and plaque index were similarly high in both groups (40 to 68% average). The Results of other measured parameters were as follows (values for mean; irradiated; non-irradiated patients with respective standard deviations; significance of comparison): bone loss (0.9+/-0.9; 1.4+/-0.9; 0.4+/-0.5 mM; P<0.01); Periotest score (-2.7+/-2.7; -2.4+/-2.2; -3.1+/-3.3; P<0.2); gingival recession (0.6+/-0.7 mM; 0.8+/-0.9 mM; 0.4+/-0.5 mM, P<0.02); and peri-implant probing depths (3+/-1.2; 2.6+/-0.6; 3.4+/-1.7 mM; P<0.002).
CONCLUSION: The results suggest reliable non-submerged implantation and early loading. However, bone loss in irradiated mandibles, combined with higher average Periotest values and gingival recession in an oral environment of altered saliva quantity, quality, microflora and local scarring, requires extended follow-up.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fourteen non-submerged interforaminal ITI implants were early loaded in 30 patients after 3 weeks in situ (telescoped overdenture). Nineteen patients received 72 implants (63%) after local irradiation; 11 non-irradiated patients received 42 implants (37%) with a 24-month follow-up.
RESULTS: At 24 month follow-up, one early failure had occurred in an irradiated patient (=99% functioning implants in situ). Peri-implant bleeding and plaque index were similarly high in both groups (40 to 68% average). The Results of other measured parameters were as follows (values for mean; irradiated; non-irradiated patients with respective standard deviations; significance of comparison): bone loss (0.9+/-0.9; 1.4+/-0.9; 0.4+/-0.5 mM; P<0.01); Periotest score (-2.7+/-2.7; -2.4+/-2.2; -3.1+/-3.3; P<0.2); gingival recession (0.6+/-0.7 mM; 0.8+/-0.9 mM; 0.4+/-0.5 mM, P<0.02); and peri-implant probing depths (3+/-1.2; 2.6+/-0.6; 3.4+/-1.7 mM; P<0.002).
CONCLUSION: The results suggest reliable non-submerged implantation and early loading. However, bone loss in irradiated mandibles, combined with higher average Periotest values and gingival recession in an oral environment of altered saliva quantity, quality, microflora and local scarring, requires extended follow-up.