Dhananjay Yadav, Farhan Durrani, Faizia Rahman, P. Borang, Shivam Kesarwani, S. Karthickraj
{"title":"使用短牙种植体和标准牙种植体修复后下颌骨的硬软组织参数的比较评价:一项裂口研究","authors":"Dhananjay Yadav, Farhan Durrani, Faizia Rahman, P. Borang, Shivam Kesarwani, S. Karthickraj","doi":"10.23805/JO.2019.11.01.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim The length of fixtures is always standardized with the concept for better bone to implant contact and successful osseointegration. Lots of studies have justified the use of short implants of less than 10 mm as an alternative for resorbed ridges in maxilla and mandible. The present project was conducted to check the viability of short implants in complex prosthetic rehabilitations. \nMaterials and methods Eleven patients received a total of 18 short implants (3.3/6 mm - 4.2/9.5mm) and 18 standard implants (3.75/11 mm and 4.5/11.5 mm) in the posterior mandible. Marginal bone loss was evaluated immediately after the delivery of the prosthesis, then after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Same measurements were done for standard implants as the study design was split mouth. \nResults The survival rate of short implants 18 months after prosthesis delivery was 94.4% and it was 100% for standard implants. There was no significant difference between implants at the time intervals of 6 and 18 month’s post-delivery of crowns and bridges. Mean crestal bone loss was 1.77±0.22 mm and 2.03±0.21 mm for short and standard implants respectively at 18 months of follow up, which was statistically significant. One short implant failure was seen before the loading of prosthesis. \nConclusion Short implants may be considered as an alternative for complex augmentation procedures in mandible and maybe in maxilla too. Patient should be educated before for the reduced survival rate of short implants compared to standard implants.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"62 1","pages":"38-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short and standard dental implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior mandible: a split mouth study\",\"authors\":\"Dhananjay Yadav, Farhan Durrani, Faizia Rahman, P. Borang, Shivam Kesarwani, S. Karthickraj\",\"doi\":\"10.23805/JO.2019.11.01.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim The length of fixtures is always standardized with the concept for better bone to implant contact and successful osseointegration. Lots of studies have justified the use of short implants of less than 10 mm as an alternative for resorbed ridges in maxilla and mandible. The present project was conducted to check the viability of short implants in complex prosthetic rehabilitations. \\nMaterials and methods Eleven patients received a total of 18 short implants (3.3/6 mm - 4.2/9.5mm) and 18 standard implants (3.75/11 mm and 4.5/11.5 mm) in the posterior mandible. Marginal bone loss was evaluated immediately after the delivery of the prosthesis, then after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Same measurements were done for standard implants as the study design was split mouth. \\nResults The survival rate of short implants 18 months after prosthesis delivery was 94.4% and it was 100% for standard implants. There was no significant difference between implants at the time intervals of 6 and 18 month’s post-delivery of crowns and bridges. Mean crestal bone loss was 1.77±0.22 mm and 2.03±0.21 mm for short and standard implants respectively at 18 months of follow up, which was statistically significant. One short implant failure was seen before the loading of prosthesis. \\nConclusion Short implants may be considered as an alternative for complex augmentation procedures in mandible and maybe in maxilla too. Patient should be educated before for the reduced survival rate of short implants compared to standard implants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"38-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2019.11.01.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2019.11.01.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的为了更好的与种植体接触和成功的骨整合,固定装置的长度一直是标准化的。大量的研究证明了使用小于10毫米的短种植体作为上颌和下颌骨吸收脊的替代方法是合理的。本项目旨在检查短种植体在复杂假肢康复中的可行性。材料与方法11例患者在后颌骨共植入短种植体18枚(3.3/6 mm ~ 4.2/9.5mm),标准种植体18枚(3.75/11 mm、4.5/11.5 mm)。在植入假体后立即、3个月、6个月、12个月和18个月后评估边缘骨损失。对于标准种植体进行了相同的测量,因为研究设计是分口的。结果短种植体术后18个月生存率为94.4%,标准种植体术后18个月生存率为100%。在冠和桥交付后6个月和18个月的时间间隔内,种植体之间的差异无统计学意义。随访18个月时,短种植体和标准种植体的平均牙冠骨损失分别为1.77±0.22 mm和2.03±0.21 mm,差异有统计学意义。1例假体加载前短暂失效。结论短段种植体可作为上颌及下颌骨复杂隆胸手术的替代方法。与标准种植体相比,短种植体的存活率较低,因此患者应事先接受教育。
Comparative evaluation of hard and soft tissue parameters by using short and standard dental implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of posterior mandible: a split mouth study
Aim The length of fixtures is always standardized with the concept for better bone to implant contact and successful osseointegration. Lots of studies have justified the use of short implants of less than 10 mm as an alternative for resorbed ridges in maxilla and mandible. The present project was conducted to check the viability of short implants in complex prosthetic rehabilitations.
Materials and methods Eleven patients received a total of 18 short implants (3.3/6 mm - 4.2/9.5mm) and 18 standard implants (3.75/11 mm and 4.5/11.5 mm) in the posterior mandible. Marginal bone loss was evaluated immediately after the delivery of the prosthesis, then after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Same measurements were done for standard implants as the study design was split mouth.
Results The survival rate of short implants 18 months after prosthesis delivery was 94.4% and it was 100% for standard implants. There was no significant difference between implants at the time intervals of 6 and 18 month’s post-delivery of crowns and bridges. Mean crestal bone loss was 1.77±0.22 mm and 2.03±0.21 mm for short and standard implants respectively at 18 months of follow up, which was statistically significant. One short implant failure was seen before the loading of prosthesis.
Conclusion Short implants may be considered as an alternative for complex augmentation procedures in mandible and maybe in maxilla too. Patient should be educated before for the reduced survival rate of short implants compared to standard implants.