不同表面处理的Brnemark种植体修复后临床评价

Clinical evaluation of Brnemark implant with different surface modification after restoration

目的:临床评价两种不同表面处理的Brnemark种植体负重4-10年后的差异。方法:57例患者分为两组,于1998年9月至2003年12月间,在我院口腔中心植入Brnemark骨结合种植体共146枚,其中光滑组使用机械光滑表面种植体68枚,钛易耐组使用钛易耐表面种植体78枚。全部种植体均在2004年8月前完成修复;平均追踪84.5个月(57～125个月),观察并记录X线和临床检查结果,对数据行统计学处理。结果:6枚(光滑组5枚)种植体在负重前松动脱落,其余140枚种植体无松动,光滑组/钛易耐组种植体周骨吸收均值、PLI和SBI分别为1.1±0.6/1.2±0.4(mm)、0.58±0.40/0.49±0.62、1.11±0.57/1.13±0.58,组间差异均无统计学意义;在观察期内,光滑组/钛易耐组的存留率为87.5%/95.7%。结论:机械光滑表面和钛易耐表面的Brnemark种植体负重4-10年后,存留率分别为87.5%和95.7%,差异产生的原因可能并不是种植体表面处理,因为两组种植体在骨吸收,菌斑指数、龈沟出血指数并无统计学差异。RRRRRR。。。

Objective：To evaluate the clinical differences of Brnemark implants with two different surface modification,4-10 years after occlusally loaded.Methods： From September 1998 to December 2003,57 patients accepted a total of 146 Brnemark osseointegration implants insertion,Patients were divided into two groups.In smooth group there were 68 mechanical surface implants,in TiUnite Group 78 implants.All successful osseointegrated implants had been completed restoration before August 2004.Average follow-up duration was 84.5 months （57-125 months）.X ray and clinical examination results were recorded,and data were analized statistically.Results： 6 （smooth group has 5） implants losed before loading and the remaining 140 implants did not loose.The mean peri-implant bone resorption,PLI,and SBI of Smooth group / TiUnite group were 1.1±0.6/1.2±0.4 （mm）,0.58 ± 0.40/0.49 ± 0.62,1.11 ± 0.57/1.13 ± 0.58,no significant difference were found betweeen the two groups.During the observation period,the retention rate of smooth group / TiUnite group was 87.5% / 95.7%.Conclusion： After occlusally loaded 4-10 years,the retention rates of smooth surface and TiUnite surface Brnemark implants were 87.5% and 95.7%.The difference may not be the result of implant surface modification,for 。 there is no statistically significance between the two groups at bone resorption,plaque index,and sulcus bleeding index.