Badra Hussain*, Jostein Ivar Grytten, Gunnar Rongen, Mariano Sanz and Håvard Jostein Haugen,
{"title":"表面地形对种植体周围炎的影响小于患者因素:两种牙科植入系统的临床比较研究。","authors":"Badra Hussain*, Jostein Ivar Grytten, Gunnar Rongen, Mariano Sanz and Håvard Jostein Haugen, ","doi":"10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Objectives: This study aims to assess the risk of peri-implantitis (PI) onset among different implant systems and evaluate the severity of the disease from a population of patients treated in a university clinic. Furthermore, this study intends to thoroughly examine the surface properties of the implant systems that have been identified and investigated. Material and methods: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses. Results: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region. Conclusion: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.</p>","PeriodicalId":8,"journal":{"name":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surface Topography Has Less Influence on Peri-Implantitis than Patient Factors: A Comparative Clinical Study of Two Dental Implant Systems\",\"authors\":\"Badra Hussain*, Jostein Ivar Grytten, Gunnar Rongen, Mariano Sanz and Håvard Jostein Haugen, \",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Objectives: This study aims to assess the risk of peri-implantitis (PI) onset among different implant systems and evaluate the severity of the disease from a population of patients treated in a university clinic. Furthermore, this study intends to thoroughly examine the surface properties of the implant systems that have been identified and investigated. Material and methods: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses. Results: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region. Conclusion: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01809","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的本研究旨在评估不同种植体系统发生种植体周围炎(PI)的风险,并对在大学诊所接受治疗的患者进行疾病严重程度的评估。此外,本研究还打算彻底检查已确定和调查的种植体系统的表面特性:从奥斯陆大学牙科学院临床牙科研究所共提取了六百一十四名患者的数据。收集了与对象和种植体相关的变量,包括种植体类型、种植体安装日期、医疗记录、截至 2022 年的回访预约、牙周测量、糖尿病信息、吸烟状况、性别和年龄。探诊出血(BoP)、种植体周围探诊深度(PD)≥ 5 毫米和骨质流失(BL)是诊断 PI 的重要结果。数据采用多元线性回归和逻辑回归进行分析。利用扫描电子显微镜、光激光轮廓仪和 X 射线光电子能谱进行表面和化学分析:在接受评估的患者中,6.8% 被诊断为 PI。对两种不同的种植系统进行了比较:Dentsply Sirona、OsseospeedTM 和 Straumann SLActive 的平均随访时间分别为 3.84 年(SE:0.15)和 3.34 年(SE:0.15)。这两种表面具有不同的地形和表面化学性质。然而,在 PI 和种植体表面/系统之间没有发现明显的关联,包括在疾病的发病和严重程度上没有差异。不过,牙菌斑控制与患者性别有关,会增加患 PI 的风险。此外,PI患者的前牙区域BL增加:结论:尽管种植体表面的地形和化学性质不同,但所评估的种植体系统之间并无差异。斑块指数和男性性别是影响患 PI 风险的因素。PI患者的前牙区BL的严重程度更为明显。因此,我们的研究结果表明,种植技术的成功并不取决于种植体系统的选择,而更多地取决于对患者特定风险因素的更好理解,以及对生物材料的应用,这些生物材料可以更有效地去除牙科种植体上的污垢。
Surface Topography Has Less Influence on Peri-Implantitis than Patient Factors: A Comparative Clinical Study of Two Dental Implant Systems
Objectives: This study aims to assess the risk of peri-implantitis (PI) onset among different implant systems and evaluate the severity of the disease from a population of patients treated in a university clinic. Furthermore, this study intends to thoroughly examine the surface properties of the implant systems that have been identified and investigated. Material and methods: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses. Results: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region. Conclusion: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.
期刊介绍:
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering is the leading journal in the field of biomaterials, serving as an international forum for publishing cutting-edge research and innovative ideas on a broad range of topics:
Applications and Health – implantable tissues and devices, prosthesis, health risks, toxicology
Bio-interactions and Bio-compatibility – material-biology interactions, chemical/morphological/structural communication, mechanobiology, signaling and biological responses, immuno-engineering, calcification, coatings, corrosion and degradation of biomaterials and devices, biophysical regulation of cell functions
Characterization, Synthesis, and Modification – new biomaterials, bioinspired and biomimetic approaches to biomaterials, exploiting structural hierarchy and architectural control, combinatorial strategies for biomaterials discovery, genetic biomaterials design, synthetic biology, new composite systems, bionics, polymer synthesis
Controlled Release and Delivery Systems – biomaterial-based drug and gene delivery, bio-responsive delivery of regulatory molecules, pharmaceutical engineering
Healthcare Advances – clinical translation, regulatory issues, patient safety, emerging trends
Imaging and Diagnostics – imaging agents and probes, theranostics, biosensors, monitoring
Manufacturing and Technology – 3D printing, inks, organ-on-a-chip, bioreactor/perfusion systems, microdevices, BioMEMS, optics and electronics interfaces with biomaterials, systems integration
Modeling and Informatics Tools – scaling methods to guide biomaterial design, predictive algorithms for structure-function, biomechanics, integrating bioinformatics with biomaterials discovery, metabolomics in the context of biomaterials
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine – basic and applied studies, cell therapies, scaffolds, vascularization, bioartificial organs, transplantation and functionality, cellular agriculture