口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (7): 730-733.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.07.011

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

后牙区单颗种植义齿邻接关系稳定性的研究

杜瑞钿, 刘森庆, 李红文*, 傅云婷, 王晓彦, 耿发云   

  1. 深圳市龙岗区耳鼻咽喉医院口腔科,深圳市耳鼻咽喉研究所 广东 深圳 518172
  • 收稿日期:2018-01-03 出版日期:2018-07-28 发布日期:2018-07-20
  • 通讯作者: 李红文,E-mail:fanmang001@163.com
  • 作者简介:杜瑞钿(1982~),女,广东潮州人,硕士,副主任医师,主要从事口腔修复学的研究。
  • 基金资助:
    深圳市重点实验室项目(编号:ZDSYS201506050935272)

Clinical Study on Proximal Contact Loss of Single Implant-supported Crown in Posterior Region

DU Rui-tian, LIU Sen-qing, LI Hong-wen*, FU Yun-ting, WANG Xiao-yan, GENG Fa-yun   

  1. Department of Stomatology, Shenzhen Longgang ENT Hospital, Shenzhen Institute of ENT, Shenzhen 518172, China.
  • Received:2018-01-03 Online:2018-07-28 Published:2018-07-20

PDF (PC)

195

摘要： 目的:研究后牙区单颗种植义齿在修复1年后与邻牙之间邻接关系的改变,并探讨其原因。方法:选择上下颌后牙区单颗牙缺失行种植修复患者147例,安装永久修复体时使用牙线确认近远中邻接关系理想,1年后复诊,使用牙线再次检查所有修复体近远中的邻接关系,并按理想、过松、无接触3种结果记录。计算邻接关系变化的发生率,比较复诊时近中与远中、前磨牙和磨牙邻接关系状况有无差异,并探讨造成邻接关系改变的原因。结果: 随访期内所有种植义齿未发现机械并发症;邻接关系发生改变的邻接面有78个,发生率29.59%,其中近中面发生率26.53%,远中面32.65%,前磨牙发生率18.18%,磨牙发生率38.89%。统计结果表明近中与远中邻接关系发生改变的差异无统计学意义,而前磨牙和磨牙差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论: 后牙区单颗种植义齿修复后邻接关系发生改变概率大,应在治疗前与患者充分沟通并减少引发因素。

关键词: 种植义齿, 邻接关系, 后牙区

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the proximal contact loss between single implant-supported crown and the adjacent teeth in posterior region. Methods: A total of 147 patients who had single tooth missing in posterior region were chosen for the present study. The proximal contacts between implant-supported crowns and the adjacent teeth were ideal conformed by dental floss at delivery time. After 1 year, the proximal contacts of all surfaces were detected by the dental floss again and recorded with ideal, not tight enough, and open. The incidence of proximal contact loss was calculated. The differences of incidence between mesial and distal surfaces and between premolar and molar group were compared. The influencing factors were explored. Results: No mechanical complication was observed. 78 surfaces were recorded with not tight enough or open, with the incidence of 29.59%. The incidence in mesial surface, distal surface, premolar group and molar group were 26.53%, 32.65%, 18.18%, and 38.89%, respectively. The incidence between mesial and distal surface was not significant different, however, the incidence between premolar and molar group was significant different (P<0.05). Conclusion: Proximal contact loss between single implant-supported crown and the adjacent teeth in posterior region is quite common. Communication with patients and reducing influencing factors before treatment are necessary.

Key words: Implant-supported restoration, Proximal contact, Posterior region