Giorgio Gastaldi, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Pietro Felice, Carlo Barausse, Daniela Rita Ippolito, Marco Esposito
{"title":"上颌钛种植体纳米结构钙结合表面(Xpeed)的早期加载:来自多中心随机对照试验的5年结果。","authors":"Giorgio Gastaldi, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Pietro Felice, Carlo Barausse, Daniela Rita Ippolito, Marco Esposito","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate clinical safety and effectiveness of a novel calcium-incorporated titanium implant (Xpeed, MegaGen Implant Co. Limited, Gyeongbuk, South Korea).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In total, 60 patients were randomised to receive one to six titanium implants in the maxilla with either calcium-incorporated (Xpeed) or control resorbable blasted media (RBM) surfaces, according to a parallel group design at two centres. Implants were submerged and exposed at three different endpoints in equal groups of 20 patients at 12, 10 and 8 weeks, respectively. Within 2 weeks, implants were functionally loaded with provisional or definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, any complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 patients received 45 calcium-incorporated implants and 30 patients were given 42 control titanium implants. Five years after loading, eight patients dropped-out from the Xpeed group and nine left the RBM group. No prosthesis or implant failures occurred. Two patients were affected by three complications in the Xpeed group vs five patients from the RBM group, who experienced eight complications; the difference between groups being not statistically significant different (P = 0.187; difference in proportions = 14.7%; 95% CI: -10.7% to 39.4%). Five years after loading patients with Xpeed implants lost on average 1.19 ± 0.48 mm of peri-implant marginal bone vs 1.43 ± 0.98 mm of patients with RBM implants, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.35; mean difference: -0.23 mm; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.27 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both implant surfaces provided good clinical results and no significant difference was found when comparing titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface with implants with an RBM surface. Conflict-of-interest statement: MegaGen partially supported this trial and donated the implants and prosthetic components. The study design was negotiated with MegaGen Implant Co, Gyeongbuk, South Korea, however, data property belonged to the authors and by no means did MegaGen interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"10 4","pages":"415-424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early loading of maxillary titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface (Xpeed): 5-year results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Giorgio Gastaldi, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Pietro Felice, Carlo Barausse, Daniela Rita Ippolito, Marco Esposito\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate clinical safety and effectiveness of a novel calcium-incorporated titanium implant (Xpeed, MegaGen Implant Co. Limited, Gyeongbuk, South Korea).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In total, 60 patients were randomised to receive one to six titanium implants in the maxilla with either calcium-incorporated (Xpeed) or control resorbable blasted media (RBM) surfaces, according to a parallel group design at two centres. Implants were submerged and exposed at three different endpoints in equal groups of 20 patients at 12, 10 and 8 weeks, respectively. Within 2 weeks, implants were functionally loaded with provisional or definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, any complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 patients received 45 calcium-incorporated implants and 30 patients were given 42 control titanium implants. Five years after loading, eight patients dropped-out from the Xpeed group and nine left the RBM group. No prosthesis or implant failures occurred. Two patients were affected by three complications in the Xpeed group vs five patients from the RBM group, who experienced eight complications; the difference between groups being not statistically significant different (P = 0.187; difference in proportions = 14.7%; 95% CI: -10.7% to 39.4%). Five years after loading patients with Xpeed implants lost on average 1.19 ± 0.48 mm of peri-implant marginal bone vs 1.43 ± 0.98 mm of patients with RBM implants, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.35; mean difference: -0.23 mm; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.27 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both implant surfaces provided good clinical results and no significant difference was found when comparing titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface with implants with an RBM surface. Conflict-of-interest statement: MegaGen partially supported this trial and donated the implants and prosthetic components. The study design was negotiated with MegaGen Implant Co, Gyeongbuk, South Korea, however, data property belonged to the authors and by no means did MegaGen interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49259,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oral Implantology\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"415-424\"},\"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}","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
摘要
目的:评价一种新型含钙钛种植体的临床安全性和有效性(Xpeed, MegaGen implant Co. Limited, Gyeongbuk, South Korea)。材料和方法:根据两个中心的平行组设计,总共有60名患者被随机分配在上颌骨接受1至6个钛种植体,其中包括钙结合(Xpeed)或对照可吸收爆破介质(RBM)表面。20名患者分别在12周、10周和8周时,在三个不同的终点浸泡和暴露植入物。在2周内,植入物被功能加载临时或最终假体。结果测量假体失败、种植体失败、任何并发症和种植体周围边缘骨水平变化。结果:30例患者接受45颗钙结合种植体,30例患者接受42颗对照种植体。5年后,8名患者退出了Xpeed组,9名患者退出了RBM组。无假体或种植体失效。Xpeed组2例患者出现3种并发症,RBM组5例患者出现8种并发症;组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.187;比例差异= 14.7%;95% CI: -10.7%至39.4%)。加载5年后,Xpeed种植体患者种植体周围边缘骨平均损失1.19±0.48 mm, RBM种植体患者种植体周围边缘骨平均损失1.43±0.98 mm,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.35;平均差值:-0.23 mm;95% CI: -0.73 ~ 0.27 mm)。结论:两种种植体表面均具有良好的临床效果,纳米结构钙结合表面钛种植体与RBM表面钛种植体比较无明显差异。利益冲突声明:MegaGen部分支持该试验,并捐赠了植入物和假体部件。研究设计是与韩国庆北MegaGen Implant Co .协商完成的,但数据所有权归作者所有,MegaGen没有干涉试验的进行或结果的发表。
Early loading of maxillary titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface (Xpeed): 5-year results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Purpose: To evaluate clinical safety and effectiveness of a novel calcium-incorporated titanium implant (Xpeed, MegaGen Implant Co. Limited, Gyeongbuk, South Korea).
Materials and methods: In total, 60 patients were randomised to receive one to six titanium implants in the maxilla with either calcium-incorporated (Xpeed) or control resorbable blasted media (RBM) surfaces, according to a parallel group design at two centres. Implants were submerged and exposed at three different endpoints in equal groups of 20 patients at 12, 10 and 8 weeks, respectively. Within 2 weeks, implants were functionally loaded with provisional or definitive prostheses. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, any complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes.
Results: A total of 30 patients received 45 calcium-incorporated implants and 30 patients were given 42 control titanium implants. Five years after loading, eight patients dropped-out from the Xpeed group and nine left the RBM group. No prosthesis or implant failures occurred. Two patients were affected by three complications in the Xpeed group vs five patients from the RBM group, who experienced eight complications; the difference between groups being not statistically significant different (P = 0.187; difference in proportions = 14.7%; 95% CI: -10.7% to 39.4%). Five years after loading patients with Xpeed implants lost on average 1.19 ± 0.48 mm of peri-implant marginal bone vs 1.43 ± 0.98 mm of patients with RBM implants, the difference being not statistically significant (P = 0.35; mean difference: -0.23 mm; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.27 mm).
Conclusions: Both implant surfaces provided good clinical results and no significant difference was found when comparing titanium implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated surface with implants with an RBM surface. Conflict-of-interest statement: MegaGen partially supported this trial and donated the implants and prosthetic components. The study design was negotiated with MegaGen Implant Co, Gyeongbuk, South Korea, however, data property belonged to the authors and by no means did MegaGen interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of its results.