植体放置于不同截骨水平稳定性的临床评价。

Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry Pub Date : 2016-10-01 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.17096/jiufd.96003
B Alper Gultekin, Ali Sirali, Pinar Gultekin, Selim Ersanli
{"title":"植体放置于不同截骨水平稳定性的临床评价。","authors":"B Alper Gultekin,&nbsp;Ali Sirali,&nbsp;Pinar Gultekin,&nbsp;Selim Ersanli","doi":"10.17096/jiufd.96003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for.</p>","PeriodicalId":30947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry","volume":"50 3","pages":"21-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/fb/jiufd-050-021.PMC5573511.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels.\",\"authors\":\"B Alper Gultekin,&nbsp;Ali Sirali,&nbsp;Pinar Gultekin,&nbsp;Selim Ersanli\",\"doi\":\"10.17096/jiufd.96003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"50 3\",\"pages\":\"21-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/fb/jiufd-050-021.PMC5573511.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.96003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估种植体在愈合期间和加载前的稳定性,根据其项圈的质地将种植体放置在两个不同的耻骨上水平。材料和方法:本回顾性研究纳入采用相同宏观设计的后路种植体的患者。机械环植入体放置于牙冠骨上方0.3 mm处(M组),激光微纹理环植入体放置于牙冠骨上方1mm处(L组)。所有种植体均在一期内愈合,并伴有愈合基台。植体稳定商(ISQ)值在手术中植体放置后立即以及手术后1、4、8和12周后使用共振频率分析测定。其他稳定性评估因素包括种植体直径、长度和放置位置(上颌骨或下颌骨)。结果:共评估种植体103个(47 L, 56 M)。M组在基线和放置后1周的中位ISQ值显著高于L组(分别为p=0.006和p=0.031)。随后的观察点无差异。宽径种植体的ISQ值高于规则径种植体(p=0.001),下颌骨种植体的ISQ值高于上颌种植体(p=0.001)。周;12周时P =0.012)。当忽略直径数据时,种植体长度对所有观测点的ISQ值没有影响。结论:将种植体埋入骨内可能只会影响骨的初期稳定性。此外,在加载前,种植体直径和放置位置会影响初级和次级稳定性,而不考虑种植体直径时,种植体长度不会影响初级和次级稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels.

Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels.

Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels.

Clinical evaluation of the stability of implants placed at different supracrestal levels.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability during healing and before loading of implants placed at two different supracrestal levels according to their collar texture.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients who received posterior implants with the same macro design. Implants with a machined collar were placed 0.3 mm above the crestal bone (M group), while those with a laser-microtextured collar were placed 1 mm above the crestal bone (L group). All implants healed in a single stage with healing abutments. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were determined using resonance frequency analysis immediately after implant placement during surgery and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery. Other evaluated factors for stability included the implant diameter and length and the site of placement (maxilla or mandible).

Results: In total, 103 implants (47 L, 56 M) were evaluated. The median ISQ values at baseline and 1 week after placement were significantly higher for the M group than for the L group (p=0.006 and p=0.031, respectively). There were no differences at the subsequent observation points. The ISQ value was higher for wide-diameter than regular diameter (p=0.001) and mandibular implants than maxillary implants (p=0.001 at 0-8. weeks; p=0.012 at 12 weeks) at all observation points. When diameter data were neglected, the implant length did not influence the ISQ value at all observation points.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that submerging implant more inside bone may only influence primary stability. Moreover, the implant diameter and site of placement influence primary and secondary stability before loading, whereas the implant length does not when its diameter is not accounted for.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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