European Journal of Oral Implantology最新文献

{"title":"Immediate loading of fixed prostheses in fully edentulous jaws - 1-year follow-up from a single-cohort retrospective study.","authors":"G. Pantaleo, Alfonso Acerra, F. Giordano, Francesco D’Ambrosio, Michele Langone, M. Caggiano","doi":"10.3390/app122312427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312427","url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\u0000To evaluate the clinical outcome of four to five implants immediately restored with metal-resin screw-retained cross-arch fixed prostheses in edentulous jaws 1 year after loading.\u0000\u0000\u0000MATERIALS AND METHODS\u0000In total, 104 consecutive patients received four 11 × 4.5 mm implants with a torque superior to 35 Ncm. If one implant did not reach a torque superior to 35 Ncm a fifth implant was added. If two implants did not reach a torque superior to 35 Ncm, loading was postponed after 3 months. A total of 127 metal-resin screw-retained fixed prostheses (59 mandibular and 68 maxillary) were to be delivered within 3 days. Outcome measures, evaluated by the treating clinician, were: prosthesis and implant failures, as well as complications.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000In total, 549 implants were placed (195 immediate post-extractive implants). Twelve maxillary prostheses were delayed loaded, whereas all others were loaded immediately. One year after loading, six patients dropped out, 12 implants failed in eight patients (two patients lost three implants each), and 87 prostheses were remade in 68 patients, one because of three implant failures and then again in the recall programme (replaced twice), one because of tree implant failures and five prosthesis fractures, 10 because of prostheses fractures and 74 in a recall programme for prosthesis replacement. All patients were wearing the planned fixed prostheses at the end of the first year in function. Ninety-eight complications occurred in 66 patients, but all were successfully solved.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000Immediately loaded cross-arch prostheses supported by four to five implants are a viable therapeutic option, if prostheses are made with resistant frameworks.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"10 3 1","pages":"339-348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47255139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research in focus.","authors":"H. Petersen","doi":"10.7748/phc.19.7.14.s24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7748/phc.19.7.14.s24","url":null,"abstract":"This section presents a brief review of articles on dental implants considered of special interest to readers, in order to encourage the development of research, the interest in data analysis and the attention to scientific publications. Your comments are welcome. Please contact Dr Michele Nieri at michelenieri@gmail.com.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"10 2 1","pages":"223-225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41391932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.","authors":"M. Esposito, H. Maghaireh, R. Pistilli, M. G. Grusovin, Sang Taek Lee, F. Gualini, J. Yoo, J. Buti","doi":"10.36130/ctd.05.2020.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36130/ctd.05.2020.02","url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\u0000To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or external connections.\u0000\u0000\u0000MATERIALS AND METHODS\u0000Two hundred patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism) requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an external connection (EC) or implants of the same type but with an internal connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) at seven centres. Due to slight differences in implant design/components, IC implants were platform switched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 1 year after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference assessed by blinded outcome assessors.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000One hundred and two patients received 173 EC implants and 98 patients received 154 IC implants. Six patients dropped out with 11 EC implants and 3 patients with four IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 1-year post-loading. Two centres did not provide any periapical radiographs. Two prostheses supported by EC implants and one supported by IC implants failed (P = 1.000, difference = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.04). Three EC implants failed in 3 patients versus two IC implants in 1 patient (P = 0.6227, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03). EC implants were affected by nine complications in 9 patients versus six complications of IC implants in 6 patients (P = 0.5988, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis/implant failures and complications between the implant systems. One year after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.50, P = 0.0629) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant manner: 0.98 mm for the EC implants and 0.85 mm for the IC implants. Five operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, preliminary short-term data (1-year post-loading) did not show any statistically significant differences between the two connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever one they preferred.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"8 4 1","pages":"331-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41974096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research in focus.","authors":"K. Davis","doi":"10.7748/phc.20.10.14.s24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7748/phc.20.10.14.s24","url":null,"abstract":"This section presents a brief review of articles on dental implants considered of special interest for the reader, in order to encourage the developing of research, the interest for data analysis and the attention to scientific publications. Your comments are welcome. Please contact Dr Michele Nieri at michelenieri@gmail.com.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 2 1","pages":"241-242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44046465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Immediate, early (6 weeks) and delayed loading (3 months) of single, partial and full fixed implant supported prostheses: 1-year post-loading data from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Miltiadis Mitsias, Konstantinos D. Siormpas, Valeria Pistilli, Anna Trullenque-Eriksson, M. Esposito","doi":"10.36130/ctd.01.2019.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36130/ctd.01.2019.04","url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\u0000To compare the clinical outcome of single, partial and complete fixed implant supported prostheses immediately loaded (within 48 h), early loaded at 6 weeks, and conventionally loaded at 3 months (delayed loading).\u0000\u0000\u0000MATERIALS AND METHODS\u0000A total of 54 patients (18 requiring single implants, 18 partial fixed prostheses, and 18 total fixed cross-arch prostheses) were randomised in equal numbers at two private practices to immediate loading (18 patients), early loading (18 patients), and conventional loading (18 patients) according to a parallel group design with three arms. To be immediately or early loaded, implants had to be inserted with a torque superior to 40 Ncm. Implants were initially loaded with provisional prostheses, replaced after 4 months by definitive ones. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone levels.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Two conventionally loaded patients rehabilitated with cross-arch fixed total prostheses dropped-out up to 1 year post-loading. No implant or prosthesis failed and three complications occurred, one in each loading group. Peri-implant marginal bone loss was 0.19 ± 0.44 mm at immediately loaded implants, 0.18 ± 0.66 mm at early loaded implants and 0.25 ± 0.28 mm at conventional loaded implants. There were no statistically significant differences in complications (P = 1.000) and bone loss (P = 0.806) between the three loading strategies.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000All loading strategies were highly successful and no differences could be observed for implant survival and complications when loading implants immediately, early or conventionally.","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"3 6","pages":"63-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41290790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The role of dental implant abutment design on the aesthetic outcome: preliminary 3-month post-loading results from a multicentre split-mouth randomised controlled trial comparing two different abutment designs.","authors":"Marco Esposito,&nbsp;Daniele Cardaropoli,&nbsp;Luca Gobbato,&nbsp;Fabio Scutellà,&nbsp;Andrea Fabianelli,&nbsp;Saverio Mascellani,&nbsp;Gianluca Delli Ficorelli,&nbsp;Fabio Mazzocco,&nbsp;Luca Sbricoli,&nbsp;Anna Trullenque-Eriksson","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether there are aesthetic and clinical benefits to using a newly designed abutment (Curvomax), over a conventional control abutment (GingiHue).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 49 patients, who required at least two implants, had two sites randomised according to a split-mouth design to receive one abutment of each type at seven different centres. The time of loading (immediate, early or delayed) and of prosthesis (provisional crowns of fixed prosthesis) was decided by the clinicians, but they had to restore both implants in a similar way. Provisional prostheses were replaced by definitive ones 3 months after initial loading, when the follow-up for the initial part of this study was completed. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, complications, pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient preference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 49 Curvomax and 49 GingiHue abutments were delivered. Two patients dropped out. No implant failure, prosthesis failure or complication was reported. There were no differences at 3 months post-loading for PES (difference = -0.15, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.25; P (paired t test) = 0.443) and marginal bone level changes (difference = -0.02 mm, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.16; P (paired t test) = 0.817). The majority of the patients (30) had no preference regarding the two abutment designs; 11 patients preferred the Curvomax, while five patients preferred the GingiHue abutments (P (McNemar test) = 0.210).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The preliminary results of the comparison between two different abutment designs did not disclose any statistically significant differences between the evaluated abutments. However the large number of missing radiographs and clinical pictures casts doubt on the reliability of the results. Longer follow-ups of wider patient populations are needed to better understand whether there is an effective advantage with one of the two abutment designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"77-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35929001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Brain abscess following dental implant placement via crestal sinus lift - a case report.","authors":"Yifat Manor,&nbsp;Adi A Garfunkel","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe a rare case of odontogenic brain abscess.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A healthy, 35-year-old male had two dental implants placed in a simultaneously augmented maxillary sinus. One implant failed and the patient developed a maxillary sinusitis that failed to improve following antibiotic treatment at home. The neglected sinus infection led to formation of a brain abscess. The patient was hospitalised only when he had pan sinusitis with neurological signs. Symptoms were headache attacks, a subfebrile fever and a purulent secretion from the left nostril. The osteomeatal complex was blocked, the maxillary sinus was filled with pus and the Schneiderian membrane thickened. The patient was treated with intravenous antibiotic treatment. Computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), were implemented. When his conditions worsened, the patient underwent a left frontal mini craniotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the craniotomy and antibiotic treatment, there was a gradual resolution and the patient was dismissed after 2 months in hospital with no neurological deficit or signs of sinusitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Maxillary sinusitis following dental implant insertion and concomitant maxillary sinus elevation should be treated immediately and thoroughly since untreated sinusitis may cause life-threatening situations such as a brain abscess. In case of severe infection, clinicians should refer immediately the patient to hospital specialists.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"113-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35929004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Immediately loaded zygomatic implants vs conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: 4 months post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Marco Esposito,&nbsp;Rubén Davó,&nbsp;Carlos Marti-Pages,&nbsp;Ada Ferrer-Fuertes,&nbsp;Carlo Barausse,&nbsp;Roberto Pistilli,&nbsp;Daniela Rita Ippolito,&nbsp;Pietro Felice","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcome of immediately loaded cross-arch maxillary prostheses supported by zygomatic implants vs conventional implants placed in augmented bone.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 71 edentulous patients with severely atrophic maxillas, who did not have sufficient bone volume to place dental implants or when it was possible to place only two implants in the front area (minimal diameter 3.5 mm and length of 8 mm) and less than 4.0 mm of bone height subantrally, were randomised according to a parallel group design. They (35 patients) received zygomatic implants to be loaded immediately vs grafting with a xenograft, followed, after 6 months of graft consolidation, by the placement of six to eight conventional dental implants, submerged for 4 months (36 patients). To be loaded immediately, zygomatic implants had to be inserted with an insertion torque superior to 40 Ncm. Screw-retained, metal-reinforced, acrylic provisional prostheses were provided to be replaced by definitive Procera Implant Bridge Titanium prostheses (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) with ceramic or acrylic veneer materials 4 months after initial loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis, implant and augmentation failures, any complications, quality of life (OHIP-14), the number of days that patients experienced total or partial impaired activity, time to function, and number of dental visits, assessed by independent assessors. Patients were followed up to 4 months after loading.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No augmentation procedure failed. Three patients dropped out from the augmentation group. Six prostheses could not be delivered or failed in the augmentation group vs one prosthesis in the zygomatic group, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = 15.32%; P = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.23 to 31.7). Eight patients lost 35 implants in the augmentation group vs three implants in one patient from the zygomatic group, the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = 21.38%; P = 0.001; 95% CI: 3.53 to 39.61). In total, 14 augmented patients were affected by 20 complications vs 26 zygomatic patients (35 complications), the difference being statistically significant (difference in proportions = 31.87%; P = 0.008; 95% CI: 6.48 to 53.37). The OHIP-14 score was 3.68 ± 5.41 for augmented patients and 4.97 ± 5.79 for zygomatic patients, with no statistically significant differences between groups (mean difference = 1.29; 95%CI -1.60 to 4.18; P = 0.439). Both groups had significantly improved OHIP-14 scores from before rehabilitation (P < 0.001 for both augmented and zygomatic patients). The number of days of total infirmity was, on average, 7.42 ± 3.17 for the augmented group and 7.17 ± 1.96 for the zygomatic group, the difference not being statistically significant (mean difference = -0.25; 95% CI: -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.692). Days of partial infirmity were on avera","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"11-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35929606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research in focus.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This section presents a brief review of articles on dental implants considered of special interest for the reader, in order to encourage the development of research, the interest for data analysis and the attention to scientific publications. Your comments are welcome. Please contact Dr Michele Nieri at michelenieri@gmail.com.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"121-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35929008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. 3-year results from a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Giorgio Gastaldi,&nbsp;Pietro Felice,&nbsp;Valeria Pistilli,&nbsp;Carlo Barausse,&nbsp;Daniela Rita Ippolito,&nbsp;Marco Esposito","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether 5.0 × 5.0 mm dental implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface could be an alternative to implants of at least 10.0 mm long placed in bone augmented with bone substitutes in posterior atrophic jaws.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Forty patients with atrophic posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles with 5.0 mm to 7.0 mm bone height above the mandibular canal, and 40 patients with atrophic maxillas with 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive between one and three 5.0 mm implants or one to three at least 10.0 mm-long implants in augmented bone at two centres. All implants had a diameter of 5.0 mm. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional bovine bone blocks covered with resorbable barriers. Implants were placed after 4 months. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers, and implants were placed simultaneously. All implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with provisional prostheses. Four months later, definitive screw-retained or provisionally cement metal-ceramic or zirconia prostheses were delivered. Patients were followed to 3 years post-loading and the outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures, any complication, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven patients dropped out before the 3-year evaluation (two short mandibles, one short maxilla, two augmented mandibles and two augmented maxillae). In mandibles, two grafted patients were not prosthetically rehabilitated because of multiple complications and two implants failed in the same patient (the second was a replacement implant) vs one patient who lost a short implant and crown 2 years after loading. In maxillas one short implant failed with its provisional crown 3 months post-loading. There were no statistically significant differences in prostheses (difference in proportion = 0.001; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.13; P = 1.000) and implant failures (difference in proportion = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.13; P = 1.000) up to 3 years after loading. Significantly, more complications occurred at mandibular grafted sites: 17 augmented patients were affected by complications vs eight patients treated with short implants in mandibles (difference in proportion = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.64; P = 0.008). In the maxilla, six sinus-lifted patients vs two patients treated with short implants were affected by complications; the difference not being statistically significant (difference in proportion = 0.21; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.45; P = 0.232). Patients with mandibular short implants lost on average 1.10 mm of peri-implant bone at 3 years and patients with 10.0 mm or longer mandibular implants lost 1.39 mm. Patients with maxillary short implants lost on average 1.04 mm of peri-implant bone at 3 years and","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 1","pages":"49-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35929608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}