Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Two Bone Substitutes in the Treatment of Bony Dehiscences

Aim: This in vivo split‐mouth randomized controlled trial compared a synthetic bone substitute with a bovine bone mineral to cover bone dehiscences after implant insertion. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients received four to six implants to support an overdenture. Two comparable dehiscences within the same patient were first covered with a layer of autogenous bone, followed by a layer of either Bio‐Oss® (group 1; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) or Straumann BoneCeramic® (group 2; Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) and sealed by a resorbable membrane. The change in vertical dimension of the defect was measured at implant placement and at abutment connection (6.5 months). Clinical and radiological parameters were evaluated up to 1 year of loading. Results: The vertical size of the defect at surgery was 6.4 ± 1.6 mm for group 1 and 6.4 ± 2.2 mm for group 2 sites, measured from the implant shoulder. After 6.5 months, the depth of the defect was reduced to 1.5 ± 1.2 mm and 1.9 ± 1.2 mm for group 1 and group 2 sites, respectively (p > 0.05). No implants failed during follow‐up. Mean marginal bone loss over the SLActive surface was 0.94 mm (group 1), 0.81 mm (group 2), and 0.93 mm (group 3, no dehiscence) after 1 year of loading. Conclusion: Both bone substitutes behaved equally effectively.     

��������������SLA��SLActive��ֲ�干��Ƶ�ʷ����Ƚ�

??Objective    The difference of implant stability quotient??ISQ??was compared between SLA and SLActive implants in the posterior mandible and maxilla by resonance frequency analysis??RFA?? in order to evaluate the clinical predictability of Straumann SLActive implants. Methods    Totally 33 SLA and 34 SLActive implants were placed in the posterior mandible and maxilla of 55 patients. Each implant was tested by Osstell ISQ for RFA after being inserted for 0??2??4??6??and 12 weeks. Results    Significant differences of ISQ were observed in the two groups ??SLA and SLActive?? after being implanted for 2??4??6??and 12 weeks. However??there was no significant difference after 0 week. Conclusion    SLActive exhibits the advantages of improving osseointegration??shortening the healing time??and increasing the clinical predictability.     

上下颌后牙区单颗SLA和SLActive种植体共振频率分析比较

目的    应用共振频率分析法使用共振频率分析仪Osstell ISQ对比大颗粒喷砂酸蚀（SLA）和亲水性大颗粒喷砂酸蚀（SLActive）2种表面种植体的种植体稳定系数（ISQ）变化趋势,评价SLActive种植体临床预期性。方法    2011年1—9月就诊于广东省佛山市第二人民医院口腔修复中心的上下颌后牙区部分牙缺失患者55例,后牙区被植入33颗SLA种植体（SLA组）和34颗SLActive种植体（SLActive组）,对比测量术后即刻、2周、4周、6周、12周种植体稳定性。结果    2组对比ISQ在术后2、4、6及12周的变化差异均有统计学意义（均P＜0.05）,而术后即刻差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论      SLActive能促进骨结合,缩短愈合时间,增加临床预期性。