未经评估:新技术,手术方案,牙种植体设计,假肢康复已被用于牙科,其中大多数在文献中取得了良好的成果。这项回顾性调查评估了2011年1月至2021年12月期间种植牙的患者的临床结果。加载协议(即时和常规),安装的植入物的连接类型,外六边形(EH),和圆锥莫尔斯(MC)进行评估。
UNASSIGNED:选择两个评估者并校准以进行分析。纳入标准是记录完整且清晰的牙科植入物康复患者的信息,这些患者在康复后至少随访1年。病历分为两组,G1(具有常规负荷的植入物)和G2(具有即时负荷的植入物),并根据植入物类型进一步细分。记录了有关康复失败的信息,并获得了结果的描述性统计数据。
未经评估:在432份评估的植入修复患者的医疗记录中,这项研究包括319条记录:223条来自女性,96条来自男性,20-79岁。总的来说,数据包括1,227个尺寸为10-13mm,直径为3.75-4mm的植入物.EH植入物的G1(n=1.188)生存率为94.95%,MC植入物为99.5%。在G2(n=39)中,EH植入物的生存率为93.75%,MC植入物的生存率为91.3%。在所有评估的组中,植入物存活率相对较高;然而,组中植入物数量之间的差异可能会影响它们之间的比较。理解和尊重每个方案的生物力学和技术原理是影响康复成功的主要因素。
未经评估:这项研究的结果表明,根据医疗记录,无论连接类型(EH或MC)或加载方案(常规或立即),牙种植体修复均显示出出色的效果。两种加载协议和两种连接类型具有出色的结果和科学支持。因此,选择应基于每个患者的临床需求。
UNASSIGNED: New techniques, surgical protocols, dental implant designs, and prosthetic rehabilitation have been used in dentistry, most of which have yielded good results in the literature. This retrospective survey assessed the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with dental implants between January 2011 and December 2021. Load protocols (immediate and conventional), types of connections of the installed implants, external hexagon (EH), and cone morse (MC) were evaluated.
UNASSIGNED: Two evaluators were selected and calibrated to perform the analyses. The inclusion criteria were records with complete and legible information of patients rehabilitated with dental implants who were followed for at least 1 year after rehabilita-tion. The medical records were divided into two groups, G1 (implants with conventional load) and G2 (implants with immediate load), and further subdivided according to implant type. Information about the rehabilitation failures was noted and descriptive statistics of the results were obtained.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 432 evaluated medical records of patients rehabilitated with implants, the study included 319 records: 223 from women and 96 from men, aged 20-79 years. In total, data were available on 1,227 implants with dimensions of 10-13 mm and diameters of 3.75-4 mm. The G1 (n=1.188) survival rates were 94.95% for EH implants and 99.5% for MC implants. In G2 (n=39), the survival rates were 93.75% for EH implants and 91.3% for MC implants. The implant survival rates were relatively high among all groups evaluated; however, the discrepancy between the number of implants in the groups may compromise the comparison between them. Understanding and respecting the biomechanical and technical principles of each protocol was the main factor influencing the success of rehabilitation.
UNASSIGNED: The results of this study showed that, according to medical records, rehabilitation with dental implants showed excellent results regardless of the connection type (EH or MC) or loading protocol (conventional or immediate). The two loading protocols and two connection types had excellent results and scientific support. Therefore, the choice should be based on the clinical needs of each patient.