[email protected]

生物医学工程与生物力学

Biomedical Engineering and Biomechanics

您当前位置：首页 > 精选文章

Biomedical Engineering and Biomechanics. 2026; 2: (1) ; 10.12208/j.beb.20260001 .

A Prospective, non-randomized clinical trial on the stability of Osstell implants with non-photosynthetic UF HSA and photosynthetic UV Active hydrophilic surfaces
Osstell 非光化 UF HSA 表面与光化 UV Active 亲水表面种植体稳定性的前瞻性非随机临床试验

作者： 马猛1 *, 王俊懿2, 张东升1

1山东第一医科大学附属省立医院口腔科 山东济南

2北京迪耀科贸有限公司 北京朝阳

*通讯作者： 马猛,单位：山东第一医科大学附属省立医院口腔科 山东济南; ；

引用本文: 马猛, 王俊懿, 张东升 Osstell 非光化 UF HSA 表面与光化 UV Active 亲水表面种植体稳定性的前瞻性非随机临床试验[J]. 生物医学工程与生物力学, 2026; 2: (1) : 1-7.
Published: 2026/8/12 11:45:59

摘要

背景与目的 本研究旨在对比光化UV Active亲水表面种植体（试验组）与传统非光化UF SLA表面种植体（对照组）在常规延期种植中的骨结合速度差异。方法与材料 研究对象：50例患者（2023年1月起），其中20例植入UV Active亲水种植体，30例植入UF SLA种植体。测量工具：Osstell ISQ测量仪，从颊舌侧各测3次，取6次平均值。测量时间点：植入时（术后0天）、术后1个月（早期稳定性）、术后3个月（二期稳定性/修复前）。结果 光化UV Active亲水组（n=20）的ISQ值在三个时间点均高于非光化UF SLA组 （n=30）。结论 亲水表面种植体在3个月时已达到更高的稳定性水平，骨结合速度更快，可缩短等待负载的时间。光化UV Active亲水表面种植体相比于传统的DIO UF SLA非亲水种植体，能够提供更快的骨结合速度，显著缩短种植治疗周期，并在术后3个月获得更好的临床骨结合效果（更高ISQ值）。 该技术对于追求高效治疗、骨质条件一般或希望尽早修复的患者具有重要价值。

关键词： 种植体；亲水；骨结合率

Abstract

Background and Objective This study aimed to compare the osseointegration rate of implants with photosynthetic UV Active hydrophilic surfaces (experimental group) and those with conventional non-photosynthetic UF SLA surfaces (control group) during routine delayed implantation.
Methods and Materials Students: 50 patients (starting from January 2023), including 20 patients receiving UV Active hydrophilic implants and 30 patients receiving UF SLA implants. Measurement Instrument: Osstell ISQ meter, measured 3 times each from the buccal and lingual sides, and the average of 6 measurements was taken. Measurement Time Points: At implantation (postoperative day 0), 1 month postoperatively (early stability), and 3 months postoperatively (secondary stability/pre-repair).
Results The ISQ values of the photosynthetic UV Active hydrophilic group (n=20) were higher than those of the non-photosynthetic UF SLA group (n=30) at all three time points.
Conclusion   Hydrophilic implants achieved higher stability at 3 months, with faster osseointegration and shorter waiting time for loading. Compared to traditional DIO UF SLA non-hydrophilic implants, photochemical UV Active hydrophilic implants provide faster osseointegration, significantly shorten the implantation treatment cycle, and achieve better clinical osseointegration (higher ISQ value) at 3 months post-operation. This technology is of significant value for patients seeking efficient treatment, those with average bone condition, or those wishing for early repair.

Key words： Implant; Hydrophilic; ISQ

参考文献 References

[1] Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):43–54.

[2] Polizzi G, Fabbro S, Furri M, Herrmann I, Squarzoni S. Clinical application of narrow Branemark System implants for single-tooth restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:496–503.

[3] Veltri M, Ferrari M, Balleri P. One-year outcome of narrow diameter blasted implants for rehabilitation of maxillas with knife-edge resorption.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:1069–1073.

[4] Andersen E, Saxegaard E, Knutsen BM, Haanaes HR. A prospective clinical study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of narrow-diameter threaded implants in the anterior region of the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:217.

[5] Froum SJ, Cho SC, Cho YS, Elian N, Tarnow D. Narrow-diameter implants: a restorative option for limited interdental space. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007;27:449–455.

[6] Mithridade D, Henry M, Jean-Francois T, Renato C, Richard L. Smalldiameter implants: indications and contraindications. J Esthet Dent. 2010;12:186–194.

[7] Lee JS, Kim HM, Kim CS, Choi SH, Chai JK, Jung UW. Long-term retrospective study of narrow implants for fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:847–852.

[8] Al-Johany SS, Al Amri MD, Alsaeed S, Alalola B. Dental implant length and diameter: a proposed classification scheme. J Prosthodont. 2016;26:252–260.

[9] Sierra-Sa´nchez JL, Martı´nez-Gonza´lez A, Garcı´a-Sala Bonmatı´ F,Man˜es-Ferrer JF, Brotons-Oliver A. Narrow-diameter implants: are they a predictable treatment option? A literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19:e74–e81.

[10] Badran Z, Struillou X, Strube N, et al. Clinical performance of narrow-diameter titanium-zirconium implants: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26:316.

[11] Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;17:35–51.

[12] Ortega-Oller I, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, et al. The influence of implant diameter on its survival: a meta-analysis based on prospective clinical trials. J Periodontol. 2014;85:569–580.

[13] Javed F, Romanos GE. Role of implant diameter on long-term survival of dental implants placed in posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:1–10.

[14] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269.

[15] Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–605.

[16] Parent N, Hanley JA. Assessing quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;19:25–39.

[17] Garlini G, Bianchi C, Chierichetti V, Sigurta` D, Maiorana C, Santoro F.Retrospective clinical study of Osseotite implants: zero- to 5-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:589–593.

[18] Romeo E, Lops DL, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of small-diameter (3.3-mm) implants followed for 1-7 years: a longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:139–148.

[19] Olate S, Lyrio MC, De MM, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. Influence of diameter and length of implant on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:414.

[20] Mijiritsky E, Mazor Z, Lorean A, Levin L. Implant diameter and length influence on survival: interim results during the first 2 years of function of implants by a single manufacturer. Implant Dent. 2013;22:394.

[21] Mangano FG, Shibli JA, Sammons RL, Iaculli F, Piattelli A, Mangano C. Short (8-mm) locking-taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior region: a prospective clinical study with 1-to 10-years of followup. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:933.

[22] Zweers J, van Doornik A, Hogendorf EA, Quirynen M, Van der Weijden GA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of narrow- vs. regulardiameter dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:149–156.

[23] Ioannidis A, Gallucci GO, Jung RE, Borzangy S, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42:1060–1070.

[24] Herrmann J, Hentschel A, Glauche I, Vollmer A, Schlegel KA, Lutz R. Implant survival and patient satisfaction of reduced diameter implants made from a titanium-zirconium alloy: a retrospective cohort study with 550 implants in 311 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44:1940.

[25] Nilsson A, Johansson LA, Lindh C, Ekfeldt A. One-piece internal zirconia abutments for single-tooth restorations on narrow and regular diameter implants: a 5-year prospective follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:916–925.

[26] de Souza AB, Sukekava F, Tolentino L, Cesar-Neto JB, Garcez-Filho J, Araujo MG. Narrow- and regular-diameter implants in the posterior region of the jaws to support single crowns: a 3-year split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:100–107.

[27] Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24(Suppl):237.

[28] Sohrabi K, Mushantat A, Esfandiari S, Feine J. How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:515–525.

[29] Lambert F, Lecloux G, Grenade C, Bouhy A, Lamy M, Rompen E. Less invasive surgical procedures using narrow diameter implants: a prospective study in 20 consecutive patients. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41:693–699.

[30] Allum SR, Tomlinson RA, Joshi R. The impact of loads on standard diameter, small diameter and mini implants: a comparative laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:553–559.

[31] Freitas GP, Hirata R, Bonfante EA, Tovar N, Coelho PG. Survival probability of narrow and standard-diameter implants with different implant-abutment connection designs. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:179–185.

[32] Han CH, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Quantitative and qualitative investigations of surface enlarged titanium and titanium alloy implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998;9:1–10.

[33] Kobayashi E, Matsumoto S, Doi H, Yoneyama T, Hamanaka H. Mechanical properties of the binary titanium-zirconium alloys and their potential for biomedical materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:943–950.

[34] Lee TJ, Ueno T, Nomura N, Wakabayashi N, Hanawa T. Titaniumzirconium binary alloy as dental implant material: analysis of the influence of compositional change on mechanical properties and in vitro biologic response. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:547.

[35] Gottlow J, Dard M, Kjellson F, Obrecht M, Sennerby L. Evaluation of a new titanium-zirconium dental implant: a biomechanical and histological comparative study in the mini pig. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:538–545.

[36] Kammerer PW, Palarie V, Schiegnitz E, Hagmann S, Alshihri A, AlNawas B. Vertical osteoconductivity and early bone formation of titaniumzirconium and titanium implants in a subperiosteal rabbit animal model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:774–780.

[37] Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di GM, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:422–431.