Evaluation of Internal and External Hexagon Connections in Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Multicenter Randomized Split-Mouth Controlled Trial With a 6-Year Follow-Up.

Francesco Bagnasco, Maria Menini, Paolo Pesce, Umberto Gibello, Massimo Carossa, Francesco Pera
{"title":"Evaluation of Internal and External Hexagon Connections in Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Multicenter Randomized Split-Mouth Controlled Trial With a 6-Year Follow-Up.","authors":"Francesco Bagnasco, Maria Menini, Paolo Pesce, Umberto Gibello, Massimo Carossa, Francesco Pera","doi":"10.1111/cid.13416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations are now a widely used rehabilitation method that guarantees predictable medium- and long-term results. Numerous factors can influence its success and stability in the medium and long term. Among these the implant-abutment connection seems to play an important role, however there is still little information on which is the most suitable in this type of treatment.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of the present multicenter split-mouth controlled trial is to evaluate whether external hexagonal connections (EHC) and internal hexagonal connections (IHC) can influence success, bone resorption and peri-implant parameters in immediate-load full-arch rehabilitations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty patients were rehabilitated with immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitations. All the implants presented the same macro- and micro-topography but different implant-abutment connection. IHC were used in one randomly selected side of the jaw and EHC was used in the other side. Outcome measures were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 36, and 72-month post-loading. Technical and biological complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 20 patients, 43 EHC and 40 IHC implants were placed. Between 32 and 72 months of follow-up two patients withdrew (died) and no implants were lost. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 97.44% for EHC implants and 97.22% for IHC implants. The MBL presented a resorption of 2 mm in the EHC group and 1.9 mm in the IHC group. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the parameters at any time. No biological or technical complications were detected between the 36th and 72nd month of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After 72 months in function, both internal and external hexagon connections provided good clinical outcomes and were not associated with any significant difference in the clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations are now a widely used rehabilitation method that guarantees predictable medium- and long-term results. Numerous factors can influence its success and stability in the medium and long term. Among these the implant-abutment connection seems to play an important role, however there is still little information on which is the most suitable in this type of treatment.

Purpose: The aim of the present multicenter split-mouth controlled trial is to evaluate whether external hexagonal connections (EHC) and internal hexagonal connections (IHC) can influence success, bone resorption and peri-implant parameters in immediate-load full-arch rehabilitations.

Materials and methods: Twenty patients were rehabilitated with immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitations. All the implants presented the same macro- and micro-topography but different implant-abutment connection. IHC were used in one randomly selected side of the jaw and EHC was used in the other side. Outcome measures were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 36, and 72-month post-loading. Technical and biological complications were recorded.

Results: In 20 patients, 43 EHC and 40 IHC implants were placed. Between 32 and 72 months of follow-up two patients withdrew (died) and no implants were lost. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 97.44% for EHC implants and 97.22% for IHC implants. The MBL presented a resorption of 2 mm in the EHC group and 1.9 mm in the IHC group. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the parameters at any time. No biological or technical complications were detected between the 36th and 72nd month of follow-up.

Conclusions: After 72 months in function, both internal and external hexagon connections provided good clinical outcomes and were not associated with any significant difference in the clinical outcomes.

立即加载全髋关节康复中的内外六边形连接评估:随访 6 年的多中心随机分口对照试验。
背景:全弓即刻加载康复是目前广泛使用的一种康复方法,它能保证可预测的中长期效果。影响中长期效果和稳定性的因素有很多。目的:本多中心分口对照试验的目的是评估外六方连接(EHC)和内六角连接(IHC)是否会影响即刻加载全牙弓修复的成功率、骨吸收和种植体周围参数:对 20 名患者进行了即刻加载固定全牙弓修复。所有种植体的宏观和微观形态相同,但种植体与基台的连接方式不同。随机选择一侧下颌使用 IHC,另一侧下颌使用 EHC。结果测量指标包括种植体成活率、种植体周围边缘骨缺损(MBL)、牙菌斑指数(PI)、探诊深度(PD)和探诊出血量(BoP),分别在种植体植入后 3、6、12、36 和 72 个月进行评估。记录了技术和生物学并发症:在20名患者中,植入了43颗EHC种植体和40颗IHC种植体。在 32 到 72 个月的随访期间,两名患者退出(死亡),没有种植体丢失。EHC 种植体的累积存活率为 97.44%,IHC 种植体的累积存活率为 97.22%。EHC 组的 MBL 吸收了 2 毫米,IHC 组的 MBL 吸收了 1.9 毫米。两组在任何时间的任何参数上都没有发现明显的统计学差异。在随访的第36个月至第72个月期间,未发现生物学或技术上的并发症:经过72个月的功能锻炼后,内六角和外六角连接都能提供良好的临床效果,并且在临床效果方面没有任何明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信