Comparison of immediately loaded flapless-placed one-piece implants and flapped-placed conventionally loaded two-piece implants, both fitted with all-ceramic single crowns, 
in the posterior mandible: 3-year results from 
a randomised controlled pilot trial.

Q1 Dentistry European Journal of Oral Implantology Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Wolfgang Bömicke, Olaf Gabbert, Andreas Koob, Johannes Krisam, Peter Rammelsberg
{"title":"Comparison of immediately loaded flapless-placed one-piece implants and flapped-placed conventionally loaded two-piece implants, both fitted with all-ceramic single crowns, \u2028in the posterior mandible: 3-year results from \u2028a randomised controlled pilot trial.","authors":"Wolfgang Bömicke,&nbsp;Olaf Gabbert,&nbsp;Andreas Koob,&nbsp;Johannes Krisam,&nbsp;Peter Rammelsberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare outcomes for immediately loaded one-piece implants (OPI), placed flapless, and conventionally loaded two-piece implants (TPI), placed after two-stage flapped surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty-eight participants were randomised to receive either one OPI (19 participants, OPI group) or one TPI (19 participants, TPI group) inserted in the posterior mandible with a torque of at least 35 Ncm according to a parallel group design. OPI were immediately loaded with non-occluding temporary crowns. After 3 months, TPI were exposed and implants in both groups were occlusally loaded with zirconia crowns. Outcome measures were implant failure, prosthesis failure, any complication and changes of probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), gingiva index (GI), and peri-implant marginal bone level, recorded by unblinded assessors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three years after occlusal loading, three participants dropped out from the TPI group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to participants with implant failure (OPI group 1/19; TPI group 0/16; difference in proportions (DIP), -5.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.3 to 4.8; P = 1.000), prosthesis failure (OPI group 3/19, TPI group 5/16; DIP, 15.5%; 95% CI -12.6 to 43.5; P = 0.424), any complication (OPI group 6/19, TPI group 5/16; DIP, -0.3%; 95% CI -31.2 to 30.5; P = 1.000), or changes of PPD (P =0.174), PI (P = 0.222), or GI (P = 0.415). Veneer chipping accounted for most prosthesis failures and complications. On average OPI and TPI lost 1.34 mm and 0.67 mm of marginal bone, respectively, the difference between groups being statistically significant (mean difference, 0.66 mm; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.34; P = 0.024) in favour of TPI implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both implant procedures might be viable in the short term, but statistically significantly more bone loss might be indicative of future problems with OPI. Because of the high incidence of chipping, veneered zirconia crowns cannot be recommended on posterior implants. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors are grateful to Nobel Biocare for providing the study materials free of charge. Money received from the manufacturer was used to reimburse participants for regular attendance at follow-up appointments and to finance data management. The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"10 2","pages":"179-195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare outcomes for immediately loaded one-piece implants (OPI), placed flapless, and conventionally loaded two-piece implants (TPI), placed after two-stage flapped surgery.

Materials and methods: Thirty-eight participants were randomised to receive either one OPI (19 participants, OPI group) or one TPI (19 participants, TPI group) inserted in the posterior mandible with a torque of at least 35 Ncm according to a parallel group design. OPI were immediately loaded with non-occluding temporary crowns. After 3 months, TPI were exposed and implants in both groups were occlusally loaded with zirconia crowns. Outcome measures were implant failure, prosthesis failure, any complication and changes of probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), gingiva index (GI), and peri-implant marginal bone level, recorded by unblinded assessors.

Results: Three years after occlusal loading, three participants dropped out from the TPI group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to participants with implant failure (OPI group 1/19; TPI group 0/16; difference in proportions (DIP), -5.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.3 to 4.8; P = 1.000), prosthesis failure (OPI group 3/19, TPI group 5/16; DIP, 15.5%; 95% CI -12.6 to 43.5; P = 0.424), any complication (OPI group 6/19, TPI group 5/16; DIP, -0.3%; 95% CI -31.2 to 30.5; P = 1.000), or changes of PPD (P =0.174), PI (P = 0.222), or GI (P = 0.415). Veneer chipping accounted for most prosthesis failures and complications. On average OPI and TPI lost 1.34 mm and 0.67 mm of marginal bone, respectively, the difference between groups being statistically significant (mean difference, 0.66 mm; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.34; P = 0.024) in favour of TPI implants.

Conclusions: Both implant procedures might be viable in the short term, but statistically significantly more bone loss might be indicative of future problems with OPI. Because of the high incidence of chipping, veneered zirconia crowns cannot be recommended on posterior implants. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors are grateful to Nobel Biocare for providing the study materials free of charge. Money received from the manufacturer was used to reimburse participants for regular attendance at follow-up appointments and to finance data management. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
即刻加载的无瓣放置的一体式种植体与带瓣放置的传统加载的两体式种植体的比较,均安装全陶瓷单冠
在后下颌:来自
的3年随机对照试验结果。
目的:比较两期皮瓣手术后即刻加载的一体式种植体(OPI)和常规加载的两片式种植体(TPI)的效果。材料和方法:38名参与者随机分配,根据平行组设计,接受一个OPI(19名参与者,OPI组)或一个TPI(19名参与者,TPI组)插入后下颌,扭矩至少为35 Ncm。OPI立即装载无咬合的临时冠。3个月后,暴露TPI,两组种植体咬合加载氧化锆冠。结果测量由非盲法评估者记录种植体失败、假体失败、任何并发症以及探测袋深度(PPD)、菌斑指数(PI)、牙龈指数(GI)和种植体周围边缘骨水平的变化。结果:咬合负荷3年后,3名受试者退出TPI组。在植入物失败的参与者方面,组间无统计学差异(OPI组1/19;TPI组0/16;比例差(DIP), -5.3%;95%置信区间(CI) -15.3 ~ 4.8;P = 1.000),假体失败(OPI组3/19,TPI组5/16;下降15.5%;95% CI -12.6 ~ 43.5;P = 0.424),任何并发症(OPI组6/19,TPI组5/16;下降-0.3%;95% CI -31.2 ~ 30.5;P = 1.000),或产后抑郁症的变化(P = 0.174),π(P = 0.222),或胃肠道(P = 0.415)。假体失败和并发症的主要原因是贴面脱落。OPI和TPI的边缘骨平均损失分别为1.34 mm和0.67 mm,组间差异有统计学意义(平均差异0.66 mm;95% CI -0.02 ~ 1.34;P = 0.024)支持TPI植入物。结论:两种种植方法在短期内都是可行的,但统计学上明显的骨质流失可能预示着未来OPI的问题。由于高发生率的碎裂,贴面氧化锆冠不推荐用于后牙种植。利益冲突声明:作者感谢Nobel Biocare免费提供研究资料。从制造商那里收到的钱被用来偿还参与者定期参加随访预约的费用,并为数据管理提供资金。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Oral Implantology
European Journal of Oral Implantology DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.35
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Immediate loading of fixed prostheses in fully edentulous jaws - 1-year follow-up from a single-cohort retrospective study. Research in focus. Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 1-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial. Research in focus. 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.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1