Ufuk Tatli, Ali Cavana, Huseyin Can Tukel, Mehmet Emre Benlidayi
{"title":"骨增强对种植体成功和生存的影响：一项平均随访6年的回顾性分析","authors":"Ufuk Tatli, Ali Cavana, Huseyin Can Tukel, Mehmet Emre Benlidayi","doi":"10.1111/cid.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm<sup>2</sup>) were measured. The study variables of the implants among augmentation groups were compared statistically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.365, <i>p</i> = 0.230, and <i>p</i> = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, <i>p</i> = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, <i>p</i> = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (<i>p</i> = 0.630 and <i>p</i> = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Bone Augmentation on Implant Success and Survival: A Retrospective Analysis With 6-Year Mean Follow-Up\",\"authors\":\"Ufuk Tatli, Ali Cavana, Huseyin Can Tukel, Mehmet Emre Benlidayi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.70021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm<sup>2</sup>) were measured. The study variables of the implants among augmentation groups were compared statistically.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.365, <i>p</i> = 0.230, and <i>p</i> = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, <i>p</i> = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, <i>p</i> = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (<i>p</i> = 0.630 and <i>p</i> = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的比较骨增强术后种植体的临床、影像学、美观、成功率和成活率。方法回顾性研究2009年至2019年764例接受种植体治疗的患者。未行骨增强术的种植体400例（对照组），行骨增强术的种植体364例。骨增强技术主要有引导骨再生（GBR）、脊裂（ridge split）和嵌体骨移植。测量牙龈指数（GI）、菌斑指数（PI）、探诊深度（PD）、探诊出血（BOP）、粉红色美学评分（PES）、边缘骨质流失（mm）和面积（mm2）。对不同隆胸组种植体的研究变量进行统计学比较。结果增强组和对照组种植体的PI、GI评分和BOP值具有可比性（p = 0.365, p = 0.230, p = 0.371）。增强组和对照组的PD平均评分分别为2.82±1.22和2.54±1.29；差异有统计学意义（p = 0.002）。增强组种植体垂直骨损失平均值为0.78±0.70，对照组为0.82±0.82，具有可比性（p = 0.461）。增强组PES平均值为8.30±1.55，对照组为10.04±2.43；差异有统计学意义（p < 0.001）。两组间种植体成活率（99.18% vs. 98%, p = 0.228）和成活率（82.97% vs. 85.50%, p = 0.389）差异无统计学意义。在增强组之间观察到一些研究变量的显著差异。平均随访6年，GBR组（99.21%、85.04%）、脊裂组（99.19%、79.68%）、嵌体组（99.12%、84.21%）、对照组（98.00%、85.50%）种植体的成活率和成功率相似（p = 0.630、p = 0.479）。结论植入增强骨与植入天然骨的累积成功率和存活率相似，平均随访6年。增强组的审美得分较低。不同强化组的临床参数存在一定差异；然而，所有的增强组都显示出相似的成功率和存活率。
Effects of Bone Augmentation on Implant Success and Survival: A Retrospective Analysis With 6-Year Mean Follow-Up
Objective
To compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.
Methods
This retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm2) were measured. The study variables of the implants among augmentation groups were compared statistically.
Results
The mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (p = 0.365, p = 0.230, and p = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (p = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, p = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, p = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (p = 0.630 and p = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.
Conclusion
The implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.
期刊介绍：
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
