Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Laêrcio Almeida de Melo, Euler Maciel Dantas, Gustavo Augusto Seabra Barbosa, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro
{"title":"悬臂伸展对下颌完整拱形种植体支撑固定修复体（3 和 4 个种植体）骨质流失的影响。","authors":"Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Laêrcio Almeida de Melo, Euler Maciel Dantas, Gustavo Augusto Seabra Barbosa, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm (<i>P</i> = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 (<i>P</i>=0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (<i>P</i>=0.018), 3 (<i>P</i>=0.015) and 4 (<i>P</i>=0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of cantilever extension on bone loss in mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis about 3 and 4 implants.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Laêrcio Almeida de Melo, Euler Maciel Dantas, Gustavo Augusto Seabra Barbosa, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.8347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm (<i>P</i> = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 (<i>P</i>=0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (<i>P</i>=0.018), 3 (<i>P</i>=0.015) and 4 (<i>P</i>=0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8347\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of cantilever extension on bone loss in mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis about 3 and 4 implants.
Statement of problem: The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood.
Purpose: The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2).
Materials and methods: 72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss.
Results: The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm (P = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 (P=0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (P=0.018), 3 (P=0.015) and 4 (P=0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4.
Conclusion: The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.
期刊介绍：
Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP)
Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
