带或不带中间基台的骨水平种植体的短期疗效相似

Q3 Dentistry
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Carlos A. Jurado, Shatha S. R. H. Alnuaimi, Sultan M. S. Alhadhrami
{"title":"带或不带中间基台的骨水平种植体的短期疗效相似","authors":"Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Carlos A. Jurado, Shatha S. R. H. Alnuaimi, Sultan M. S. Alhadhrami","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01065-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Design</h3><p>A single-center (university-setting), prospective, longitudinal, split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated peri-implant parameters of bone-level implants restored with either screw-retained prostheses connected directly to the implants or with intermediate abutments over a 3-year period. The study adhered to the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the CONSORT guidelines. Ethical approval was granted, and the trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Case selection</h3><p>Participants included were over 18 years of age, had a plaque index below 25%, and were missing at least two adjacent teeth, allowing for rehabilitation with screw-retained fixed partial prostheses over two implants and 2–4 prosthetic units. Exclusion criteria included long-term use of medications affecting bone metabolism, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day, history of local radiotherapy, untreated periodontitis, and the need for rehabilitation in the anterior sextant of the maxilla. The primary clinical outcome was marginal bone loss (MBL), while secondary outcomes included probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Study timeline</h3><p>The study schedule included a screening (visit 1), implant surgery (visit 2), stage-two 8 weeks post-surgery (visit 3), impressions taken 4 weeks post stage-two (visit 4), baseline standardized radiograph (visit 5), followed by 6-month (visit 6), 12-month (visit 7), and 36-month (visit 8) follow-up visits.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Data analysis</h3><p>Descriptive statistics and quantitative measures included means, standard deviations (SDs), minimum and maximum values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Clinical parameters (six sites per implant) measured were MBL, PPD, PI, and BOP. Paired <i>t</i> tests were utilized for intragroup comparisons across different time points and intergroup comparisons at each time point. PROs at 36 months were compared using Student’s <i>t</i> test. The alpha significance level was set at 0.05.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The study included 36 patients (72 implants), with two not completing the follow-up due to death and relocation. No implants showed signs of inflammation or mobility. Mean interproximal bone level (IBL) at baseline was 0.13 mm ± 0.15 mm for the control group and 0.10 ± 0.13 mm for the test group. At the 36-month follow-up, mean IBL was 0.13 ± 0.18 mm for the control group and 0.20 ± 0.24 mm for the test group, with no significant differences (F(1, 32) = 1.06; p &gt; 0.05). Clinical parameters (PPD, BOP, PI) at 36 months showed no significant differences between groups. Minor complications occurred in 6.7% of the control group and 5.3% of the test group. PROs indicated no significant differences in general satisfaction, esthetics, comfort, phonetics, and masticatory function between the groups.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>After a 36-month follow-up, bone-level implants restored with CAD/CAM prostheses directly connected to the implants displayed similar clinical outcomes, PROs, and marginal bone level changes as those restored with intermediate standardized abutments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Similar short-term outcomes for bone-level implants with or without intermediate abutments\",\"authors\":\"Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Carlos A. Jurado, Shatha S. R. H. Alnuaimi, Sultan M. S. Alhadhrami\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01065-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Design</h3><p>A single-center (university-setting), prospective, longitudinal, split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated peri-implant parameters of bone-level implants restored with either screw-retained prostheses connected directly to the implants or with intermediate abutments over a 3-year period. The study adhered to the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the CONSORT guidelines. Ethical approval was granted, and the trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Case selection</h3><p>Participants included were over 18 years of age, had a plaque index below 25%, and were missing at least two adjacent teeth, allowing for rehabilitation with screw-retained fixed partial prostheses over two implants and 2–4 prosthetic units. Exclusion criteria included long-term use of medications affecting bone metabolism, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day, history of local radiotherapy, untreated periodontitis, and the need for rehabilitation in the anterior sextant of the maxilla. The primary clinical outcome was marginal bone loss (MBL), while secondary outcomes included probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Study timeline</h3><p>The study schedule included a screening (visit 1), implant surgery (visit 2), stage-two 8 weeks post-surgery (visit 3), impressions taken 4 weeks post stage-two (visit 4), baseline standardized radiograph (visit 5), followed by 6-month (visit 6), 12-month (visit 7), and 36-month (visit 8) follow-up visits.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Data analysis</h3><p>Descriptive statistics and quantitative measures included means, standard deviations (SDs), minimum and maximum values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Clinical parameters (six sites per implant) measured were MBL, PPD, PI, and BOP. Paired <i>t</i> tests were utilized for intragroup comparisons across different time points and intergroup comparisons at each time point. PROs at 36 months were compared using Student’s <i>t</i> test. The alpha significance level was set at 0.05.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The study included 36 patients (72 implants), with two not completing the follow-up due to death and relocation. No implants showed signs of inflammation or mobility. Mean interproximal bone level (IBL) at baseline was 0.13 mm ± 0.15 mm for the control group and 0.10 ± 0.13 mm for the test group. At the 36-month follow-up, mean IBL was 0.13 ± 0.18 mm for the control group and 0.20 ± 0.24 mm for the test group, with no significant differences (F(1, 32) = 1.06; p &gt; 0.05). Clinical parameters (PPD, BOP, PI) at 36 months showed no significant differences between groups. Minor complications occurred in 6.7% of the control group and 5.3% of the test group. PROs indicated no significant differences in general satisfaction, esthetics, comfort, phonetics, and masticatory function between the groups.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>After a 36-month follow-up, bone-level implants restored with CAD/CAM prostheses directly connected to the implants displayed similar clinical outcomes, PROs, and marginal bone level changes as those restored with intermediate standardized abutments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01065-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01065-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计一项单中心(大学设置)、前瞻性、纵向、分口、单盲、随机对照临床试验,研究了骨水平种植体的种植体周围参数,在 3 年的时间里,使用直接与种植体连接的螺丝固位修复体或中间基台进行修复。该研究遵守了《赫尔辛基宣言》和 CONSORT 指南的伦理原则。病例选择参加者年龄在18岁以上,牙菌斑指数低于25%,至少有两颗相邻牙齿缺失,允许在两颗种植体和2-4个修复单位上使用螺钉固位的固定部分修复体进行修复。排除标准包括长期服用影响骨代谢的药物、每天吸烟超过 10 支、有局部放疗史、牙周炎未经治疗以及需要在上颌骨前六分区进行修复。主要临床结果是边缘骨损失(MBL),次要结果包括探诊袋深度(PPD)、牙菌斑指数(PI)、探诊出血量(BOP)和患者报告结果(PROs)。研究时间表研究时间表包括筛查(第1次就诊)、种植手术(第2次就诊)、手术后8周的第二阶段(第3次就诊)、第二阶段后4周的印模采集(第4次就诊)、基线标准化X光片(第5次就诊),然后是6个月(第6次就诊)、12个月(第7次就诊)和36个月(第8次就诊)的随访。数据分析描述性统计和定量指标包括平均值、标准差(SD)、最小值和最大值以及95%置信区间(CI)。测量的临床参数(每个植入体六个部位)包括 MBL、PPD、PI 和 BOP。不同时间点的组内比较和每个时间点的组间比较均采用配对 t 检验。使用学生 t 检验比较 36 个月时的 PROs。结果该研究共纳入 36 名患者(72 个种植体),其中两人因死亡和搬迁而未完成随访。没有种植体出现炎症或移动迹象。对照组基线时的平均近侧骨水平(IBL)为 0.13 mm ± 0.15 mm,测试组为 0.10 ± 0.13 mm。在 36 个月的随访中,对照组的平均 IBL 为 0.13 ± 0.18 毫米,测试组为 0.20 ± 0.24 毫米,无显著差异(F(1, 32) = 1.06; p >0.05)。36 个月时的临床参数(PPD、BOP、PI)在各组间无显著差异。对照组和试验组分别有 6.7% 和 5.3% 的患者出现轻微并发症。结论经过 36 个月的随访,使用直接连接到种植体的 CAD/CAM 义齿修复的骨水平种植体与使用中级标准化基台修复的种植体在临床效果、PROs 和边缘骨水平变化方面显示出相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Similar short-term outcomes for bone-level implants with or without intermediate abutments

Design

A single-center (university-setting), prospective, longitudinal, split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated peri-implant parameters of bone-level implants restored with either screw-retained prostheses connected directly to the implants or with intermediate abutments over a 3-year period. The study adhered to the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the CONSORT guidelines. Ethical approval was granted, and the trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov.

Case selection

Participants included were over 18 years of age, had a plaque index below 25%, and were missing at least two adjacent teeth, allowing for rehabilitation with screw-retained fixed partial prostheses over two implants and 2–4 prosthetic units. Exclusion criteria included long-term use of medications affecting bone metabolism, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day, history of local radiotherapy, untreated periodontitis, and the need for rehabilitation in the anterior sextant of the maxilla. The primary clinical outcome was marginal bone loss (MBL), while secondary outcomes included probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Study timeline

The study schedule included a screening (visit 1), implant surgery (visit 2), stage-two 8 weeks post-surgery (visit 3), impressions taken 4 weeks post stage-two (visit 4), baseline standardized radiograph (visit 5), followed by 6-month (visit 6), 12-month (visit 7), and 36-month (visit 8) follow-up visits.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and quantitative measures included means, standard deviations (SDs), minimum and maximum values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Clinical parameters (six sites per implant) measured were MBL, PPD, PI, and BOP. Paired t tests were utilized for intragroup comparisons across different time points and intergroup comparisons at each time point. PROs at 36 months were compared using Student’s t test. The alpha significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

The study included 36 patients (72 implants), with two not completing the follow-up due to death and relocation. No implants showed signs of inflammation or mobility. Mean interproximal bone level (IBL) at baseline was 0.13 mm ± 0.15 mm for the control group and 0.10 ± 0.13 mm for the test group. At the 36-month follow-up, mean IBL was 0.13 ± 0.18 mm for the control group and 0.20 ± 0.24 mm for the test group, with no significant differences (F(1, 32) = 1.06; p > 0.05). Clinical parameters (PPD, BOP, PI) at 36 months showed no significant differences between groups. Minor complications occurred in 6.7% of the control group and 5.3% of the test group. PROs indicated no significant differences in general satisfaction, esthetics, comfort, phonetics, and masticatory function between the groups.

Conclusions

After a 36-month follow-up, bone-level implants restored with CAD/CAM prostheses directly connected to the implants displayed similar clinical outcomes, PROs, and marginal bone level changes as those restored with intermediate standardized abutments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
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