M. Figliuzzi, A. Giudice, M. Cristofaro, D. Pacifico, P. Biamonte, L. Fortunato
{"title":"美学区拔牙后种植体:随时间对种植体周围骨重塑的评价。","authors":"M. Figliuzzi, A. Giudice, M. Cristofaro, D. Pacifico, P. Biamonte, L. Fortunato","doi":"10.11138/ads/2015.6.1.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIM\nThe aim of this research was to assess peri-implant bone remodeling of post-extractive implants over 2 years.\n\n\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\n30 patients meeting pre-established inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. One implant for each patient was inserted in the post-extraction sockets according to a defined surgical protocol (atramautic extraction, curettage of extraction socket, implant insertion, grafting with collagenated cortico-cancellous porcine bone, and a trimmed collagen membrane to completely cover the socket, suture). A temporary adhesive bridge, with an adequate profile, was bonded to the adjacent teeth. X-ray evaluation with a standardized stent was carried out at different times. Measurements were obtained from the implant edge to the bone peak. The values obtained at time 0 and at 2 years were compared by t-student test.\n\n\nRESULT\nOur results showed that after one year 73% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 20% of patient had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 7% of patient had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm of bone reabsorption. After two years 62% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 24% had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 14% had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe results showed no significant differences in bone reabsorption in most patients over 2 years.","PeriodicalId":78041,"journal":{"name":"Annali di stomatologia","volume":"6 1 1","pages":"29-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postextractive implants in aesthetic areas: evaluation of perimplant bone remodeling over time.\",\"authors\":\"M. Figliuzzi, A. Giudice, M. Cristofaro, D. Pacifico, P. Biamonte, L. Fortunato\",\"doi\":\"10.11138/ads/2015.6.1.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AIM\\nThe aim of this research was to assess peri-implant bone remodeling of post-extractive implants over 2 years.\\n\\n\\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\\n30 patients meeting pre-established inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. One implant for each patient was inserted in the post-extraction sockets according to a defined surgical protocol (atramautic extraction, curettage of extraction socket, implant insertion, grafting with collagenated cortico-cancellous porcine bone, and a trimmed collagen membrane to completely cover the socket, suture). A temporary adhesive bridge, with an adequate profile, was bonded to the adjacent teeth. X-ray evaluation with a standardized stent was carried out at different times. Measurements were obtained from the implant edge to the bone peak. The values obtained at time 0 and at 2 years were compared by t-student test.\\n\\n\\nRESULT\\nOur results showed that after one year 73% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 20% of patient had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 7% of patient had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm of bone reabsorption. After two years 62% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 24% had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 14% had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nThe results showed no significant differences in bone reabsorption in most patients over 2 years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":78041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali di stomatologia\",\"volume\":\"6 1 1\",\"pages\":\"29-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali di stomatologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11138/ads/2015.6.1.029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali di stomatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11138/ads/2015.6.1.029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
目的本研究的目的是评估2年以上种植体拔牙后种植体周围骨重塑的情况。材料与方法30例患者符合预先建立的纳入标准。根据确定的手术方案(无创伤拔牙、拔牙窝刮除、植入种植体、皮质松质猪骨移植、修剪后的胶原膜完全覆盖牙窝、缝合),将每位患者的一颗种植体植入拔牙后的牙窝。一个临时的粘接剂桥,有足够的轮廓,与邻近的牙齿粘接。采用标准化支架在不同时间进行x线评估。测量从种植体边缘到骨峰。用t-student检验比较0年和2年的数据。结果1年后73%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm, 20%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm≤x≤0.5mm, 7%的患者骨重吸收为0.5mm≤x≤2mm。2年后,62%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm, 24%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm≤x≤0.5mm, 14%的患者骨重吸收为0.5mm≤x≤2mm。结论2年后大多数患者骨重吸收无显著差异。
Postextractive implants in aesthetic areas: evaluation of perimplant bone remodeling over time.
AIM
The aim of this research was to assess peri-implant bone remodeling of post-extractive implants over 2 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
30 patients meeting pre-established inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. One implant for each patient was inserted in the post-extraction sockets according to a defined surgical protocol (atramautic extraction, curettage of extraction socket, implant insertion, grafting with collagenated cortico-cancellous porcine bone, and a trimmed collagen membrane to completely cover the socket, suture). A temporary adhesive bridge, with an adequate profile, was bonded to the adjacent teeth. X-ray evaluation with a standardized stent was carried out at different times. Measurements were obtained from the implant edge to the bone peak. The values obtained at time 0 and at 2 years were compared by t-student test.
RESULT
Our results showed that after one year 73% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 20% of patient had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 7% of patient had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm of bone reabsorption. After two years 62% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 24% had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 14% had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm.
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed no significant differences in bone reabsorption in most patients over 2 years.