口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (10): 1098-1101.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.10.016

• 口腔种植修复学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

锥形锁柱种植体应用于牙周病患者后牙即刻种植的临床回顾性研究

岑雯, 王轶, 郭水根, 孟展, 张越, 黄江琴, 魏洪武*   

  1. 南昌大学第四附属医院口腔科 江西 南昌 330003
  • 收稿日期:2018-04-11 出版日期:2018-10-28 发布日期:2018-10-24
  • 通讯作者: 魏洪武,E-mail:Nc.whw@163.com
  • 作者简介:岑雯(1992~ ),女,浙江慈溪人,硕士在读,主要从事口腔种植修复研究。

Clinical Retrospective Study of Immediate Implantation of Locking Taper Implants in Posterior Teeth with Periodontitis.

CEN Wen, WANG Yi, GUO Shui-gen, MENG Zhan, ZHANG Yue, HUANG Jiang-qin, WEI Hong-wu*.   

  1. The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University in Jiangxi Province, Nanchang 330003, China.
  • Received:2018-04-11 Online:2018-10-28 Published:2018-10-24

PDF (PC)

263

摘要： 目的: 比较锥形锁柱种植体在慢性中重度牙周炎患者行后牙区即刻种植和延期种植2种种植方式的短期临床疗效。方法: 收集2015年1月~2015年12月接受种植修复的26例慢性中重度牙周炎患者,共植入种植体52枚,其中即刻种植组(A组)28枚,延期种植组(B组)24枚,术后3~6个月完成冠修复,修复后追踪观察时间(14.4±2.3)月,观察种植体存留情况、修复后种植体周围骨吸收量和调查患者满意度。结果: 即刻种植组1枚植体因感染取出,延期种植组失败0枚,存留率分别为96.4%和100%;修复后1年实验组和对照组的种植体近中边缘骨吸收分别为(0.027±0.340) mm和(0.024±0.292) mm,远中边缘骨吸收分别为(0.011±0.252) mm和(-0.002±0.360) mm;2组患者总体满意度较高,上述差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),观察期内存留的种植体正常行使功能,种植体周围软组织健康状况良好。结论: 慢性中重度牙周炎患者经过完善的牙周系统治疗后,在牙周状况良好的条件下,应用锥形锁柱种植体进行后牙区即刻种植,与延期种植在短期内临床效果相当。

关键词: 牙周炎, 后牙区, 即刻种植, 延期种植, 骨吸收

Abstract: Objective: To Compare the short-term clinical outcomes of immediate implantation versus delayed implantation of posterior teeth with chronic moderate or severe periodontitis using the locking taper implants. Methods: Twenty-six patients with chronic moderate or severe periodontitis were collected during January 2015 to December 2015. A total of 52 implants were implanted, in which 28 were immediate implantation (Group A) and 24 were delayed implantation (Group B). The crown restorations were finished after 3 to 6 months. Survival rate, bone resorption, and patients’ satisfaction were recorded during (14.4±2.3) months following up. Results: One implant was failed due to the infection in Group A, and the rest implants were all in good condition. The survival rates were 96.4% and 100%, respectively. The mesial bone loss were (0.027±0.340) mm and (0.024±0.292) mm, and the distal bone loss were (0.011±0.252)mm and (-0.002±0.360) mm, respectively after one year’s implantation. There was no significant difference in the following aspects: mesial and distal bone loss (P>0.05), patients’ satisfaction (P>0.05), and survival rates (P=1) between Group A and Group B. Conclusion: After comprehensive periodontal treatment, the clinical outcome of immediate implantation appears to similar to delayed implantation using the locking taper implants in the posterior teeth with well-controlled moderate or severe chronic periodontitis in short term.

Key words: Periodontitis, Immediate implantation, Delayed implantation, Posterior teeth, Marginal bone loss