超短假体(≤5.5 毫米)与长假体夹在同一假体下的临床表现比较:随机临床试验。

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dentistry Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.3390/dj12090292
Eduardo Anitua, Adriana Montalvillo, Asier Eguia, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat
{"title":"超短假体(≤5.5 毫米)与长假体夹在同一假体下的临床表现比较:随机临床试验。","authors":"Eduardo Anitua, Adriana Montalvillo, Asier Eguia, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat","doi":"10.3390/dj12090292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This randomized controlled split-mouth trial compared the performance of 5.5 mm length implants (test group; TG) splinted within the same fixed prosthesis as longer implants (≥6.5 mm; control group; CG) in posterior regions. <b>Methods:</b> The primary hypothesis was that implant length does not affect marginal bone loss (MBL) one year post-implantation, while the secondary hypotheses included implant survival, peri-implant clinical variables, and prosthetic complications. Fifteen patients (eight males, seven females) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years were included. <b>Results:</b> No significant difference in the implant position between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.808) was observed. Implant diameters ranged from 3.00 to 4.25 mm, and the most common bone type was type I (67%). Bone density (<i>p</i> = 0.574) and implant insertion torque (<i>p</i> = 0.888) were similar between groups. Mesial MBL (mean: -0.1; range: -1.19 to 0.24 for TG, and -0.03; -1.75 to 0.45 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.955) and distal MBL (mean: -0.05; range: -1.41 to 0.27 for TG, and 0.08; -1.45 to 0.72 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.118) did not show statistical differences. There were no implant failures or technical complications. <b>Conclusions:</b> These findings suggest that 5.5 mm length implants could be a viable option for use in posterior regions, providing similar clinical outcomes to longer implants one year post-implantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11431532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Eduardo Anitua, Adriana Montalvillo, Asier Eguia, Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj12090292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This randomized controlled split-mouth trial compared the performance of 5.5 mm length implants (test group; TG) splinted within the same fixed prosthesis as longer implants (≥6.5 mm; control group; CG) in posterior regions. <b>Methods:</b> The primary hypothesis was that implant length does not affect marginal bone loss (MBL) one year post-implantation, while the secondary hypotheses included implant survival, peri-implant clinical variables, and prosthetic complications. Fifteen patients (eight males, seven females) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years were included. <b>Results:</b> No significant difference in the implant position between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.808) was observed. Implant diameters ranged from 3.00 to 4.25 mm, and the most common bone type was type I (67%). Bone density (<i>p</i> = 0.574) and implant insertion torque (<i>p</i> = 0.888) were similar between groups. Mesial MBL (mean: -0.1; range: -1.19 to 0.24 for TG, and -0.03; -1.75 to 0.45 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.955) and distal MBL (mean: -0.05; range: -1.41 to 0.27 for TG, and 0.08; -1.45 to 0.72 for CG; <i>p</i> = 0.118) did not show statistical differences. There were no implant failures or technical complications. <b>Conclusions:</b> These findings suggest that 5.5 mm length implants could be a viable option for use in posterior regions, providing similar clinical outcomes to longer implants one year post-implantation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11431532/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12090292\",\"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":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12090292","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

目的:这项随机对照分口试验比较了 5.5 毫米长的种植体(试验组;TG)与较长的种植体(≥6.5 毫米;对照组;CG)夹在同一固定义齿中在后牙区的表现。方法:主要假设是种植体长度不会影响种植体植入一年后的边缘骨质流失(MBL),次要假设包括种植体存活率、种植体周围临床变量和修复并发症。共纳入 15 名患者(8 男 7 女),平均年龄为 67 ± 9 岁。结果:两组患者的种植体位置无明显差异(P = 0.808)。种植体直径从 3.00 毫米到 4.25 毫米不等,最常见的骨类型为 I 型(67%)。各组间的骨密度(p = 0.574)和种植体插入扭矩(p = 0.888)相似。内侧 MBL(平均值:-0.1;范围:-1.0TG:-0.1;范围:-1.19 至 0.24;CG:-0.03;-1.75 至 0.45;p = 0.955)和远端 MBL(平均:-0.05;范围:-1.75 至 0.45;p = 0.955):TG为-0.05;范围:-1.41至0.27;CG为0.08;-1.45至0.72;P = 0.118)未显示统计学差异。没有植入失败或技术并发症。结论:这些研究结果表明,5.5 毫米长的种植体可用于后牙区,种植一年后的临床效果与长种植体相似。
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
Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective: This randomized controlled split-mouth trial compared the performance of 5.5 mm length implants (test group; TG) splinted within the same fixed prosthesis as longer implants (≥6.5 mm; control group; CG) in posterior regions. Methods: The primary hypothesis was that implant length does not affect marginal bone loss (MBL) one year post-implantation, while the secondary hypotheses included implant survival, peri-implant clinical variables, and prosthetic complications. Fifteen patients (eight males, seven females) with a mean age of 67 ± 9 years were included. Results: No significant difference in the implant position between groups (p = 0.808) was observed. Implant diameters ranged from 3.00 to 4.25 mm, and the most common bone type was type I (67%). Bone density (p = 0.574) and implant insertion torque (p = 0.888) were similar between groups. Mesial MBL (mean: -0.1; range: -1.19 to 0.24 for TG, and -0.03; -1.75 to 0.45 for CG; p = 0.955) and distal MBL (mean: -0.05; range: -1.41 to 0.27 for TG, and 0.08; -1.45 to 0.72 for CG; p = 0.118) did not show statistical differences. There were no implant failures or technical complications. Conclusions: These findings suggest that 5.5 mm length implants could be a viable option for use in posterior regions, providing similar clinical outcomes to longer implants one year post-implantation.

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
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Asymmetric Dimethylarginine as a Potential Mediator in the Association between Periodontitis and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. Effect of a Novel Ergonomic Sheath on Dental Device-Related Muscle Work, Fatigue and Comfort-A Pilot Clinical Study. Evaluating Treatment Modalities for Reducing Recurrence in Central Giant Cell Granuloma: A Narrative Review. Influence of Direct Coronal Restoration Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars: An In Vitro Study. Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical 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