简化钻孔与常规钻孔的对比:一项随机临床试验。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Bioengineering Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.3390/bioengineering12020178
Alberto Ruiz García, Artiom Lijnev, Fatemeh Soleymani, Jeevithan Elango, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de Val, Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez
{"title":"简化钻孔与常规钻孔的对比:一项随机临床试验。","authors":"Alberto Ruiz García, Artiom Lijnev, Fatemeh Soleymani, Jeevithan Elango, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de Val, Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12020178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluates the influence of conventional versus simplified drilling protocols on bone remodeling after the osteointegration period, marginal bone loss (MBL), and primary implant stability. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 44 implants in 37 patients over a two-year period. The primary outcome was peri-implant tissue stability, measured as MBL at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included implant stability, measured via insertion torque, and survival rates. The results indicated no significant differences in initial bone remodeling and MBL between groups after 24 months. Both protocols demonstrated high survival rates, with one implant failure recorded in the simplified protocol group. Although simplified drilling protocols may reduce surgical complexity, concerns about heat generation and reduced adaptability in osteotomy were described in the literature. This study concludes that drilling protocol choice does not significantly impact bone levels during osteointegration, crestal bone maintenance, or implant survival over 24 months, but further research is needed to explore long-term effects and prosthetic factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852080/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bone Remodeling and Marginal Bone Loss of Simplified Versus Conventional Drilling: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Ruiz García, Artiom Lijnev, Fatemeh Soleymani, Jeevithan Elango, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de Val, Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering12020178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study evaluates the influence of conventional versus simplified drilling protocols on bone remodeling after the osteointegration period, marginal bone loss (MBL), and primary implant stability. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 44 implants in 37 patients over a two-year period. The primary outcome was peri-implant tissue stability, measured as MBL at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included implant stability, measured via insertion torque, and survival rates. The results indicated no significant differences in initial bone remodeling and MBL between groups after 24 months. Both protocols demonstrated high survival rates, with one implant failure recorded in the simplified protocol group. Although simplified drilling protocols may reduce surgical complexity, concerns about heat generation and reduced adaptability in osteotomy were described in the literature. This study concludes that drilling protocol choice does not significantly impact bone levels during osteointegration, crestal bone maintenance, or implant survival over 24 months, but further research is needed to explore long-term effects and prosthetic factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852080/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020178\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了传统钻孔方案与简化钻孔方案对骨整合期后骨重塑、边缘骨丢失(MBL)和初级种植体稳定性的影响。一项随机双盲临床试验在两年的时间里对37名患者进行了44次植入。主要结局是种植体周围组织稳定性,以基线、12个月和24个月的MBL来衡量。次要结果包括通过插入扭矩测量的植入物稳定性和存活率。结果显示,24个月后,两组间的初始骨重塑和MBL无显著差异。两种方案均显示出较高的存活率,简化方案组仅记录了一例植入失败。虽然简化的钻孔方案可以降低手术的复杂性,但文献中也描述了对截骨术中产生热量和适应性降低的担忧。本研究得出结论,钻孔方案的选择对骨整合、嵴骨维持或种植体存活期间的骨水平没有显著影响,但需要进一步研究长期影响和假体因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Bone Remodeling and Marginal Bone Loss of Simplified Versus Conventional Drilling: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

This study evaluates the influence of conventional versus simplified drilling protocols on bone remodeling after the osteointegration period, marginal bone loss (MBL), and primary implant stability. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted involving 44 implants in 37 patients over a two-year period. The primary outcome was peri-implant tissue stability, measured as MBL at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included implant stability, measured via insertion torque, and survival rates. The results indicated no significant differences in initial bone remodeling and MBL between groups after 24 months. Both protocols demonstrated high survival rates, with one implant failure recorded in the simplified protocol group. Although simplified drilling protocols may reduce surgical complexity, concerns about heat generation and reduced adaptability in osteotomy were described in the literature. This study concludes that drilling protocol choice does not significantly impact bone levels during osteointegration, crestal bone maintenance, or implant survival over 24 months, but further research is needed to explore long-term effects and prosthetic factors.

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
Bioengineering
Bioengineering Chemical Engineering-Bioengineering
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
661
期刊介绍: Aims Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal: ● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings. ● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed. ● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material. ● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds. Scope ● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces ● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices ● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc. ● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology ● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering ● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation ● Translational bioengineering
期刊最新文献
Engineering a Quantitative Organ-on-a-Chip Platform for Myogenic Mechanobiology. Cross-Modal Alignment and Rectified Flow-Based Latent Representation Synthesis for Enhanced Speech-Driven Alzheimer's Disease Detection. Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation as an Adjuvant for Nonfluent Aphasia: A Proof-of-Concept Study. Comparative Evaluation of Beverage-Induced Surface Alterations on Dental Enamel: An In Vitro Biomaterial Study. Effect of Internal Structural Design on Stress Distribution in 3D-Printed Subperiosteal Implants Under Mechanical Loading.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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