Journal of periodontology · 2007
Dental implants for immediate fixed restoration of partially edentulous patients: a 1-year prospective pilot clinical trial in periodontally susceptible patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Machtei Eli E, Frankenthal Shai, Blumenfeld Israel, Gutmacher Zvi, Horwitz Jacob
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients using immediate loading/restoration (ILR) protocols and the factors that modulate this response.
METHODS: Systemically healthy patients who were treated previously for chronic periodontitis and who required implant therapy were recruited. Following data collection, "surgical templates" and provisional fixed restorations were fabricated. Transgingival implants were inserted, and surgical measurements were performed. After abutment connection, the crown/bridge was relined and cemented. Patients were monitored for 12 months, at which time final measurements were performed.
RESULTS: Twenty patients (49 implants) completed this study; five implants failed and were removed (90% survival rate). All implants were removed during the first 6 months. At 12 months, the mean implants' probing depth was 2.87 +/- 0.9 mm. The mean electronic mobility testing device value (-1.3 +/- 0.7) was slightly higher than at baseline (-3.53 +/- 10.7). Radiographic bone loss ranged between -1.24 and 2.77 mm (mean +/- SD: 0.91 +/- 0.2 mm). All of the implants (16) that were inserted in the premolar region were successful, whereas three of nine implants in the molar region and two of 24 implants in the canine/incisor region failed (P = 0.0278). Survival in the immediately loaded group (83%) was slightly lower than in the immediately restored group (96%); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. None of the other variables (smoking, arch, stability, implant length and diameter, and bone width) affected the outcome of this procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: ILR protocols are predictable alternatives in periodontally susceptible patients. Results in the molar regions suggested that careful consideration should be given to implants placed in these sites. Long-term success in these patients has not been addressed.
METHODS: Systemically healthy patients who were treated previously for chronic periodontitis and who required implant therapy were recruited. Following data collection, "surgical templates" and provisional fixed restorations were fabricated. Transgingival implants were inserted, and surgical measurements were performed. After abutment connection, the crown/bridge was relined and cemented. Patients were monitored for 12 months, at which time final measurements were performed.
RESULTS: Twenty patients (49 implants) completed this study; five implants failed and were removed (90% survival rate). All implants were removed during the first 6 months. At 12 months, the mean implants' probing depth was 2.87 +/- 0.9 mm. The mean electronic mobility testing device value (-1.3 +/- 0.7) was slightly higher than at baseline (-3.53 +/- 10.7). Radiographic bone loss ranged between -1.24 and 2.77 mm (mean +/- SD: 0.91 +/- 0.2 mm). All of the implants (16) that were inserted in the premolar region were successful, whereas three of nine implants in the molar region and two of 24 implants in the canine/incisor region failed (P = 0.0278). Survival in the immediately loaded group (83%) was slightly lower than in the immediately restored group (96%); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. None of the other variables (smoking, arch, stability, implant length and diameter, and bone width) affected the outcome of this procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: ILR protocols are predictable alternatives in periodontally susceptible patients. Results in the molar regions suggested that careful consideration should be given to implants placed in these sites. Long-term success in these patients has not been addressed.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAlveolar Bone LossDental AbutmentsDental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration, PermanentDenture, Partial, FixedFemaleHumansJaw, Edentulous, PartiallyMaleMandibleMaxillaMiddle AgedOsseointegrationPeriodontal DiseasesPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesProsthesis FailureTreatment OutcomeWeight-BearingWound Healing