目的:抗高血压药物增加成骨细胞分化和骨矿物质形成。牙种植体的骨整合取决于新骨的形成和重塑。因此,接受抗高血压药物治疗的患者骨整合改善可能是推测的。目的-评估抗高血压药物对牙科植入物骨整合的影响。
方法:回顾性队列研究。所有个人(792人)在一个医疗中心的6年期间接受了至少一个牙种植体。该队列分为三组:血压正常(74.8%-593)患者(NT组),高血压(23.4%-185)患者使用抗高血压药物(HTN+med组),和未使用(1.8%-14%)抗高血压药物的高血压患者(HTN-med组)。干预措施-由经验丰富的口腔和颌面外科医生在有或没有骨增强的情况下安装牙科植入物。主要措施——早期种植失败(EIF)(负载后≤12个月)反映骨整合过程中缺乏新骨形成或骨转换过度。
结果:该研究包括792名个体,HTN-med组14人,HTN+med组185个,NT组593个。在患者层面,HTN治疗组最有可能(P=.041)出现EIF28.60%(4/14例患者).由于HTN-med组的样本少,我们进行了额外的分析,排除了该组.HTN+med组EIF为9.70%(18/185例),显著(P=.047)低于NT组14.50%(86/593例)。在所有研究组中插入2971个植入物,NT组71.4%(2123),HTN+med组26.4%(784),HTN-med组2.2%(64)。总的来说,记录了114例(3.84%)植入物的EIF。在HTN-med组中,EIF为6.25%(4个植入物),显著(P<.001)高于其他两组。HTN+med组的EIF率为2.29%(18个植入物),显著低于NT组的4.33%(92个植入物)。控制修改参数,使用抗高血压药物可产生较低的EIF,具有边际显著性(P=.059),OR=0.618.
结论:根据HTN+med组中发现的统计学上较低的EIF率,抗高血压药物可能会降低种植牙的EIF率。
结论:应鼓励临床医生使用植入物支持的假体治疗高血压患者,前提是患者对药物摄入的依从性良好。
OBJECTIVE: Antihypertensive medications increase osteoblasts differentiation and bone mineral formation. Osseointegration of dental implants depends on new bone formation and remodelling. Consequently, improved osseointegration may be speculated in patients receiving antihypertensive drugs. Aim - Asses the effect of antihypertensive medications on osseointegration of dental implants.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. All individuals (792) who received at least one dental implant during a 6-year period at a single medical centre. The cohort was divided into three groups: normotensive (74.8% - 593) patients (NT group), hypertensive (23.4% - 185) patients using antihypertensive medications (HTN +med group), and hypertensive patients not using (1.8% - 14) antihypertensive medications (HTN -med group). Interventions-Installation of dental implants by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons with or without bone augmentation. Main measures - Early implant failure (EIF) (≤12 months from loading) reflects lack of new bone formation or excessive bone turnover during osseointegration.
RESULTS: The study included 792 individuals, 14 in the HTN-med group, 185 in the HTN +med group and 593 in the NT group. At the patient level, the HTN -med group were most likely (P = .041) to experience EIF 28.60% (4/14 patients). Due to the small sample of the HTN -med group, an additional analysis was carried out excluding this group. EIF of 9.70% (18/185 patients) in the HTN +med group was significantly (P = .047) lower than the NT group 14.50% (86/593 patients). 2971 implants were inserted in all study groups, 71.4% (2123) in the NT group, 26.4% (784) in the HTN +med group and 2.2% (64) in the HTN -med group. Collectively, EIF was recorded for 114 (3.84%) implants. In the HTN -med group, EIF of 6.25% (4 implants), was significantly (P < .001) higher than the two other groups. The EIF rate of the HTN +med group was 2.29% (18 implants) which was significantly less than that of the NT group 4.33% (92 implants). Controlling modifying parameters, using antihypertensive medication yielded lower EIF with marginal significance (P = .059) and OR = 0.618.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on statistically significant lower EIF rate found in the HTN +med group, antihypertensive medications may decrease the EIF rate of dental implants.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be encouraged to treat hypertensive patients with implant-supported prostheses, provided patient compliance regarding medications intake is good.