口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (9): 837-842.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.09.009

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

美学区单颗种植体临时修复后不同印模方式获取软组织轮廓准确性的对比分析

贾相斌1, 曹潇1, 张宇宸1, 眭永潮2, 周秦1*   

  1. 1. 西安交通大学口腔医院陕西省颅颌面精准医学研究重点实验室;西安交通大学口腔医院陕西省牙颌疾病临床研究中心;西安交通大学口腔医院种植科 陕西 西安 710004;
    2. 西安市莲湖区口腔医疗协会 陕西 西安 710003
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-21 发布日期:2022-09-26
  • 通讯作者: *周秦,E-mail:zhouqin0529@126.com
  • 作者简介:贾相斌(1994~ ),男,山西长治人,博士在读,研究方向:口腔医学。
  • 基金资助:
    西安交通大学口腔医院陕西省牙颌疾病临床医学研究中心开放课题(编号:2020YHJB11)

Accuracy of Recording Soft Tissue Contour by Different Impression Techniques after Interim Restoration of Single Implant in the Aesthetic Area.

JIA Xiangbin1, CAO Xiao1, ZHANG Yuchen1, SUI Yongchao2, ZHOU Qin1*.   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Department of Oral Implantology, College & Hospital of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710004, China;
    2. Lianhu Dental Care Association of Xi'an, Xi'an 710003, China.
  • Received:2022-03-21 Published:2022-09-26

PDF (PC)

176

摘要： 目的: 对美学区单颗种植体临时修复后不同印模方式记录软组织轮廓的准确性进行测量比较,为临床工作提供参考。方法: 研究纳入16位患者,为其制作种植体支持式临时冠并至少佩戴3个月。取终印模时收集数字化印模及传统个性化印模资料,以数字化间接法模型为参考模型(MR),对数字化直接法(DS组)、个性化印模石膏模型(MCI组)与参考模型间龈缘龈乳头高度差异(ΔH)、唇侧牙龈凸度水平向差异(ΔDFM)及穿龈轮廓水平向差异(ΔDEP)进行测量比较。结果: 相比参考模型,DS组龈缘龈乳头高度随时间推移逐渐降低,4 min时ΔH平均-0.21~-0.39 mm,唇侧牙龈凸度在龈缘根方1 mm处出现轻微塌陷,4 min时(-0.15±0.09) mm、龈缘根方2~3 mm处相对稳定;穿龈轮廓逐渐收缩,且中部及根方区域收缩程度显著大于冠方。MCI组较参考模型的龈缘龈乳头高度降低平均0.06~0.27 mm、与DS0.1相近;唇侧牙龈稍凸出于参考模型表面,平均(0.03~0.09) mm;穿龈轮廓也出现一定程度缩窄,根方区域ΔDEP显著大于冠方及中部,与DS0.1相比MCI在唇侧龈下1 mm及2 mm处ΔDEP更小,其余位点差异无统计学意义。结论: 数字化直接法印模记录种植体周围软组织轮廓的误差随扫描时间的推移而逐渐增加,使用时应尽快完成扫描;个性化印模转移种植体周围软组织轮廓时也存在误差,与取下临时冠立即扫描相比,记录龈缘龈乳头位置的准确性相近、穿龈轮廓的误差更小。

关键词: 种植修复, 美学, 印模, 穿龈轮廓

Abstract: Objective: To measure and compare the accuracy of soft tissue contour recording by different impression methods after temporary restoration of single implant in aesthetic area. Methods: Sixteen patients were enrolled and worn implant-supported temporary crowns for at least 3 months. Digital impression and customized impression were collected. The digital indirect approach model was used as reference model (MR), and the discrepancy of gingival margin and papilla (ΔH), facial mucosa convexity (ΔDFM), and emergence profile (ΔDEP) between digital direct approach model (DS group), customized impression model (MCI group) and reference models were measured and compared. Results: In DS group, compared with MR, the height of gingival margin and papilla decreased gradually over time, ΔH was -0.21~-0.39 mm in average at 4min. The facial mucosa convexity was slightly collapsed at 1mm subgingival (-0.15±0.09)mm at 4 min, and remained stable at 2-3 mm subgingival, the emergence profile also gradually shrank with time, and the ΔDEP in the middle and apical region was significantly greater than that in the coronal region. Compared with the reference model, the height of gingival margin and papilla in MCI was decreased by 0.06-0.27 mm on average, which was similar to DS0.1. The facial mucosa was slightly bulging from the surface of MR (mean 0.03-0.09mm). Emergence profile was also narrowed, and ΔDEP in the apical region was significantly larger than that in the coronal and middle region. Compared with DS0.1, ΔDEP in the labial subgingival 1mm and 2mm of MCI was smaller, and there was no statistical significance in other sites. Conclusion: The error of digital direct approach increased gradually with the scanning time, which implies that the scanning should be completed as soon as possible. There are also errors in the customized impression transfer of peri-implant soft tissue contour. Compared with immediate scanning after removal of IR, the accuracy of recording gingival margin and papilla is similar, but the error of emergence profile is smaller.

Key words: implant restoration, aesthetic, impression, emergence profile