A 6‐Year Randomized Controlled Trial on Different Implant Designs in Maxillary Overdenture Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In order to reduce crestal bone remodeling around the implant shoulder, different implant macrodesigns have been developed. The presence of microthreads at the coronal part of the implant, as well as platform-shifting using a conical internal abutment connection, is suggested to limit bone remodeling. However, long-term studies excluding confounding factors to confirm this are scarce. AIM: This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of implant neck design (microthreaded vs. non-microthreaded) as well as type of abutment connection (internal conical vs. external flat-to-flat) on long-term crestal bone remodeling and peri-implant health. Additionally, the clinical outcome of bar-retained maxillary overdentures on 4 implants is reported after at least 6 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were treated with a bar-retained maxillary overdenture. Each patient received 4 different implants, one of each of the 4 experimental designs, with respectively: internal connection and microthreads on the implant neck (I MT); internal connection without microthreads (I NMT); external connection with microthreads (E MT); and external connection without microthreads (E NMT). Other features, such as diameter, surface topography, extent of platform switch, as well as the surgical and prosthetic treatment protocol, were identical. The implants were randomly allocated to the sites (posterior right, anterior right, anterior left, and posterior left), based on a pre-randomized, fixed-order assignment generated by a randomization software. Radiographic crestal bone loss (CBL), plaque score (PS), bleeding on probing (BoP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) were determined after 1 and 6 function years. RESULTS: Two implants in 2 patients were excluded because of protocol deviations, requiring the placement of a wider implant. Four out of 98 implants (4.1%) failed during the provisionalization process. These were replaced with the same type of implant after 3 months of healing and were included in further analysis. Due to the relatively small sample size and high drop-out rate, the effect of microthread design and connection on implant survival could only be reported descriptively. Twenty patients could be re-evaluated at the 1-year and 6-year time points, resulting in 78 examined implants. These showed a mean CBL of 0.39 mm (SD: 0.68; range: 0-3.42) after 1 year and 0.37 mm (SD: 0.61; range: -0.34-3.03) after 6 years. Between the 4 different study implants, no statistically significant difference in CBL could be identified over time. Neither microthreads nor connection type showed a statistically significant effect on CBL over time, nor on PPD, BoP, and PS at the 6-year re-evaluation. CONCLUSION: Six years after implant placement, a four-implant, bar-retained maxillary overdenture shows a high implant and prosthetic survival rate with crestal bone stability. The presence or absence of microthreads and the type of implant-abutment connection have only a limited effect on peri-implant CBL. The peri-implant health parameters are indicative of the absence of peri-implantitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06821308.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».