短牙种植体与标准长度种植体的治疗效果比较:一项回顾性临床研究。

IF 2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI:10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8
Kinga Bérczy, György Göndöcs, György Komlós, Tatiana Shkolnik, György Szabó, Zsolt Németh
{"title":"短牙种植体与标准长度种植体的治疗效果比较:一项回顾性临床研究。","authors":"Kinga Bérczy, György Göndöcs, György Komlós, Tatiana Shkolnik, György Szabó, Zsolt Németh","doi":"10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants.</p>","PeriodicalId":18357,"journal":{"name":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"46 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study.\",\"authors\":\"Kinga Bérczy, György Göndöcs, György Komlós, Tatiana Shkolnik, György Szabó, Zsolt Németh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902233/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"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":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00419-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:牙科植入物的大小是适当骨结合的关键因素。使用较短的种植体可以避免复杂的外科手术,降低治疗的发病率。较短的种植体还能在骨量有限的颌面部重建后实现种植修复。在这项研究中,我们对短型种植体的成功率进行了研究,并与标准尺寸种植体的成功率进行了比较:研究对象为 2007 年至 2016 年期间在塞梅尔维斯大学颌面外科和口腔医学系接受牙科植入物治疗的患者。研究人员记录了多项临床参数,并辅以放射学检查。对数据进行了统计分析:结果:34名患者共植入了60颗种植体。植入 8 毫米种植体的患者平均修复时间为 39.33 ± 21.96 个月,植入大于 8 毫米种植体的患者平均修复时间为 41.6 ± 27.5 个月。两组在探查深度(短种植体,2.84 ± 0.09 mm;标准种植体,2.91 ± 0.35 mm)或平均边缘骨质流失(短种植体,中线 1.2 ± 1.21 mm,远线 1.36 ± 1.47 mm;标准种植体,0.63 ± 0.80 mm)方面无明显差异:结论:在这项研究中,短牙种植体的成功率与标准尺寸种植体的成功率相当。因此,可以说短牙种植体的长期成功率与标准种植体的长期成功率没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study.

Background: The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants.

Methods: Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed.

Results: Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally).

Conclusions: In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants.

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
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Virtual surgical plan with custom surgical guide for orthognathic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. The epidemiological and histopathological factors for delayed local recurrence in oral squamous cell carcinoma. A retrospective epidemiological analysis of maxillofacial fractures at a tertiary referral hospital in istanbul: a seven-year study of 1,757 patients. Egyptian patients with cleft lip: our experience with primary rhinoplasty. Volume changes in the contralateral submandibular gland following unilateral gland excision in oral cancer patients.
×
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