口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (6): 549-553.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2021.06.015

• 口腔修复学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同类型种植覆盖义齿临床疗效的回顾性研究

赵宝红*, 庞鸿娟, 李雪菁, 江鹭鹭, 邹丽妍, 邓春富, 张翀, 王丹宁, 田思睿   

  1. 中国医科大学口腔医学院·附属口腔医院种植中心,辽宁省口腔疾病重点实验室,辽宁省口腔医学研究所口腔种植研究室,辽宁省口腔疾病转化医学研究中心 辽宁 沈阳 110002
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-06 出版日期:2021-06-28 发布日期:2021-06-17
  • 通讯作者: *赵宝红,E-mail:bhzhao@cmu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:赵宝红(1970~ ),女,辽宁沈阳人,主任医师,博士,研究方向:口腔种植修复。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(编号:82071151);辽宁省自然科学基金(编号:20170541059)

Clinical Analysis of Implant-supported Overdentures with Different Types of Attachments

ZHAO Baohong*, PANG Hongjuan, LI Xuejing, JIANG Lulu, ZOU Liyan, DENG Chunfu, ZHANG Chong, WANG Danning, TIAN Sirui   

  1. Center of Oral Implantology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Liaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Liaoning Provincial Center of Oral Diseases Transformation, Shenyang 110002, China
  • Received:2020-11-06 Online:2021-06-28 Published:2021-06-17

PDF (PC)

419

摘要： 目的:回顾性分析无牙颌不同类型种植覆盖义齿的临床疗效。方法:随访46名种植覆盖义齿修复的无牙颌患者,进行影像学和临床检查,并记录机械并发症的发生情况。通过种植体存留率、边缘骨吸收量、种植体周围软组织情况、机械并发症发生情况和患者满意度来评估种植体覆盖义齿的临床疗效。结果:在随访时间内(64±36)月,种植体存留率是93.44%,种植体边缘骨吸收量为(1.32±1.13) mm。不同附着体支持的种植覆盖义齿修复后种植体边缘骨吸收量、探诊出血指数无统计学差异(P＞0.05),探诊深度、菌斑指数和牙龈增生指数有统计学差异(P＜0.05),牙龈增生多见于杆卡组。机械并发症主要有固位帽松动、固位力不足、基台磨损和螺丝松动。患者对覆盖义齿的总体满意度较高。结论:不同附着体支持的种植覆盖义齿均取得良好的临床疗效,提高了患者的生活质量。

关键词: 无牙颌, 种植覆盖义齿, 临床疗效

Abstract: Objective: To analyze the clinical efficacy of implant-supported overdentures with different types of attachments. Methods: Forty-six patients treated by implant-supported overdentures with different types of attachments were included and examined. Index for peri-implant tissue conditions and prosthetic complications were examined and recorded. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by the rate of implant retention, incidence of complications, and patients' satisfaction. Results: After an average follow-up of (64±36) months, the survival rate of implants was 93.44%, the marginal bone loss was (1.32±1.13) mm. There was no statistical difference among the different types of attachments groups regarding the peri-implant marginal bone loss and bleeding on probing (P＞0.05). There were statistically significant differences in mucosal proliferation index, plaque index, and probing depth (P＜0.05). Gingival hyperplasia was more common in the bar group. The main mechanical complications of implant-supported overdentures were retaining cap loosening and replacement, abutment wear, and screw loosening. Conclusion: The implant-supported overdentures with different types of attachments have successful clinical efficacy and patients' satisfaction. The quality of life of the patients was improved by overdenture.

Key words: edentulous jaw, implant overdenture, clinical efficacy