Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2015
A 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study on Hydrophilic Dental Implants Placed with and without Bone Augmentation Procedures.
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.
Zumstein Thomas, Sennerby Lars
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of the present 1-year clinical and radiographic study was to evaluate a hydrophilic dental implant when used in everyday cases in one clinic. The purpose was also to compare augmented with nonaugmented sites.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 50 consecutive patients treated with 159 dental implants (Proactive, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) in both mandibles and maxillae. Ninety-two implants were placed with adjunct bone augmentation procedures, whereas 40 implants were placed in augmented maxillary sinus sites. A two-stage procedure was used for 84 implants and a one-stage procedure for 47 implants. Twenty-eight implants were immediately loaded. Implant stability was measured with resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at placement and at prosthesis delivery. The patients were scheduled for checkups after 6 and 12 months in function with clinical and radiographic examinations. Marginal bone level measurements were performed in baseline and follow-up intraoral radiographs.
RESULTS: Two implant failures in two patients were experienced after 1 year of loading, giving a survival rate of 98.7%. One implant in nonaugmented sites and one implant in conjunction with an augmentation procedure (sinus lift), giving a survival rate of 98.5% and 98.9% for healed and augmented sites, respectively (NS). RFA measurements showed 70.2 ± 9.5 ISQ at placement and 76.5 ± 5.9 ISQ (p ≤ 0.001) after a mean healing time of 5.6 ± 1.6 months. The marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year of loading. Frequency distribution showed bone gain or less than 1 mm bone loss for the majority of implants (69.3%), whereas 25.7% showed 1.1 to 2 mm, 5.0% more than 2 mm and no implants more than 3 mm of bone loss.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of Neoss Proactive implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of consecutive patients resulted in predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year of loading with no differences between augmented and nonaugmented sites.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 50 consecutive patients treated with 159 dental implants (Proactive, Neoss Ltd, Harrogate, UK) in both mandibles and maxillae. Ninety-two implants were placed with adjunct bone augmentation procedures, whereas 40 implants were placed in augmented maxillary sinus sites. A two-stage procedure was used for 84 implants and a one-stage procedure for 47 implants. Twenty-eight implants were immediately loaded. Implant stability was measured with resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at placement and at prosthesis delivery. The patients were scheduled for checkups after 6 and 12 months in function with clinical and radiographic examinations. Marginal bone level measurements were performed in baseline and follow-up intraoral radiographs.
RESULTS: Two implant failures in two patients were experienced after 1 year of loading, giving a survival rate of 98.7%. One implant in nonaugmented sites and one implant in conjunction with an augmentation procedure (sinus lift), giving a survival rate of 98.5% and 98.9% for healed and augmented sites, respectively (NS). RFA measurements showed 70.2 ± 9.5 ISQ at placement and 76.5 ± 5.9 ISQ (p ≤ 0.001) after a mean healing time of 5.6 ± 1.6 months. The marginal bone loss amounted to 0.7 ± 0.7 mm after 1 year of loading. Frequency distribution showed bone gain or less than 1 mm bone loss for the majority of implants (69.3%), whereas 25.7% showed 1.1 to 2 mm, 5.0% more than 2 mm and no implants more than 3 mm of bone loss.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of Neoss Proactive implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of consecutive patients resulted in predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 1 year of loading with no differences between augmented and nonaugmented sites.