Comparison of the aesthetic effect between Xive and Ankylos implant placed with guided bone regeneration technique in anterior region

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2015.03.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the differences of the aesthetic effect between Xive and Ankylos implants.

Methods

Patients received treatment for single tooth restoration in aesthetic region were selected and divided into two groups by Xive and Ankylos implant: Xive group (n= 30) and Ankylos group (n= 30) . All patients were observed at 6, 12, 24 months after secondary surgery, aesthetic effect (the pink esthetic score and white esthetic score, PES/WES) were assessed. The success rate of implants at 24 months after secondary surgery were recorded.

Results

(1) The success rate of implants: Xive group and Ankylos group were all 100%, there was no statistical difference (χ²= 0, P > 0.05) . (2) Aesthetic effects: the score of PES in Xive group is higher than that in Ankylos group 6 months after secondary surgery, the difference shows statistical significance (t= 4.86, t= 0.21, P < 0.05) . There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the score of PES at 12 months after secondary surgery (t= 0.21, P > 0.05) . The score of PES in Ankylos group is apparently higher than that in Xive group 24 months after secondary surgery, the difference shows statistical significance (t= 3.03, P < 0.05) . There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the score of WES at 6 and 12 months after secondary surgery (t= 0.12/0.15, all P > 0.05) . The score of WES in Ankylos group is apparently higher than that in Xive group24 months after secondary surgery, the difference shows statistical significance (t= 2.06, P < 0.05) .

Conclusions

High success rate and satisfactory esthetic results could be achieved by GBR with simultaneous placement of Xive or Ankylos implants. However, the classification of bone defects and complexity of GBR were not taken into account in the present study, further researches should be conducted to compare the esthetic results of these two implants with GBR technique in anterior region.

Key words: Bone regeneration, Dental implant, Esthetic

Jing Fan, Xueling Li. Comparison of the aesthetic effect between Xive and Ankylos implant placed with guided bone regeneration technique in anterior region[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2015, 09(03): 237-242.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2015.03.012

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2015/V09/I03/237

Figures/Tables 6

References 18

[1]	束明阳，朱晓琴，杨波.骨增量技术在口腔种植中的应用进展[J/CD].中华口腔医学研究杂志：电子版，2014，8(6):509-511.
[2]	Levin BP. Alveolar ridge augmentation：combining bioresorbable scaffolds with osteoinductive bone grafts in atrophic sites. A follow-up to an evolving technique[J]. Compend Contin Educ Dent，2013，34(3):178-186.
[3]	Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R，et al. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia：clinical and experimental considerations[J]. Dent Mater，2011，27(1):83-96.
[4]	Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P，et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants：a review and proposed criteria of success[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，1986，1(1):11-25.
[5]	Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T，et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns：the pink esthetic score [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2005，16(6):639-644.
[6]	Belser UC, Grütter L, Vailati F，et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria：a cross-sectional，retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores [J]. J Periodontol，2009，80(1):140-151.
[7]	Chen P, Yu S, Zhu G. The psychosocial impacts of implantation on the dental aesthetics of missing anterior teeth patients[J]. Br Dent J，2012，213(11):E20.
[8]	Hof M, Pommer B, Strbac GD，et al. Esthetic evaluation of single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla following autologous bone augmentation[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2013，24(Suppl A100):88-93.
[9]	Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R. Soft tissue preservation and pink aesthetics around single immediate implant restorations：a 1-year prospective study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2013，15(6):847-857.
[10]	Buser D, Chappuis V, Bornstein MM，et al. Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone：a prospective，cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up[J]. J Periodontol，2013，84(11):1517-1527.
[11]	宿玉成.种植外科中的软组织处理及其美学效果[J].中华口腔医学杂志，2006，41(3):148-150.
[12]	Kourkouta S, Dedi KD, Paquette DW，et al. Interproximal tissue dimensions in relation to adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla：clinical observations and patient aesthetic evaluation[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2009，20(12):1375-1385.
[13]	Prasad DK, Shetty M, Bansal N，et al. Crestal bone preservation：a review of different approaches for successful implant therapy[J]. Indian J Dent Res，2011，22(2):317-323.
[14]	Aloy-Prósper A, Maestre-Ferrín L, Peñarrocha-Oltra D，et al. Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface：an update[J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal，2011，16(3):e365-e368.
[15]	孙长玲，董长安，王丽娟. Ankylos种植系统在前牙区的临床应用及效果评价[J].中国医药指南，2013，11(2):449-450.
[16]	郭照中，杨旭，张恒，等. Xive和Ankylos 2种种植系统单牙修复的临床疗效评价[J].南昌大学学报（医学版），2010，50(11):54-56,59.
[17]	Sahabi M, Adibrad M, Mirhashem FS，et al. Biomechanical effects of platform switching in two different implant systems：a three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. J Dent（Tehran），2013，10(4):338-350.
[18]	Roberts WE.正畸中骨的生理学、新陈代谢和生物力学∥Graber TM.徐芸，主译.口腔正畸学：现代原理与技术[M].天津：天津科技翻译出版公司，1996：191-234.

组别	例数	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后24个月
Ankylos组	30	6.62 ± 0.66	9.57 ± 1.15	11.67 ± 1.54
Xive组	30	7.57 ± 0.81	9.49 ± 1.20	10.24 ± 1.73
t值	?	4.86	0.21	3.03
P值	?	0.000	0.84	0.004

组别	例数	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后24个月
Ankylos组	30	6.62 ± 0.66	9.57 ± 1.15	11.67 ± 1.54
Xive组	30	7.57 ± 0.81	9.49 ± 1.20	10.24 ± 1.73
t值	?	4.86	0.21	3.03
P值	?	0.000	0.84	0.004

组别	例数	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后24个月
Ankylos组	30	7.81 ± 0.45	7.56 ± 1.14	7.61 ± 1.28
Xive组	30	7.77 ± 0.62	7.48 ± 1.83	6.22 ± 1.97
t值	?	0.12	0.15	2.06
P值	?	0.91	0.87	0.04

组别	例数	术后6个月	术后12个月	术后24个月
Ankylos组	30	7.81 ± 0.45	7.56 ± 1.14	7.61 ± 1.28
Xive组	30	7.77 ± 0.62	7.48 ± 1.83	6.22 ± 1.97
t值	?	0.12	0.15	2.06
P值	?	0.91	0.87	0.04

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export