挤压种植术对上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植远期疗效及边缘骨吸收量的影响

doi:10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2019.06.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的： 研究挤压种植术对上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植远期疗效及边缘骨吸收量的影响。方法： 将2012年3月~2013年3月于我院接受上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植修复治疗的患者86例(共使用种植体120枚)作为观察对象。以种植体作为研究单位,按照其是否接受挤压种植术分为研究组(67枚种植体)与对照组(53枚种植体),对照组予以常规种植术治疗,研究组则予以挤压种植术治疗。对两组患者均进行为期5年的随访观察,计算并对比两组种植体5年成功率。此外,比较两组患者术后不同时间点的边缘骨吸收量情况。结果： 研究组与对照组的5年种植体成功率分别为98.51%(66/67)、94.34%(50/53),两者相比不明显,差异无统计学意义(均P> 0.05)。研究组种植体植入后半年时的边缘骨吸收量为(0.38± 0.23)mm,相比对照组的(0.54± 0.38)mm较高,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05);研究组植入后1年、植入后2年、植入后3年时的边缘骨吸收量分别为(1.08± 0.64)mm、(1.57± 0.60)mm、(1.92± 0.78)mm,相比对照组的(1.07± 0.59)mm、(1.56± 0.72)mm、(1.94± 0.85)mm不明显,差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。研究组上颌窦炎、手术部位肿胀、种植体松动脱落发生率分别为0.00%(0/67)、1.49%(1/67)、4.48%(3/67),相比对照组的1.89%(1/53)、3.77%(2/53)、7.55%(4/53)不明显,差异均无统计学意义(均P> 0.05)。结论： 挤压种植术对上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植的远期疗效较佳,且在短期内有效减少边缘骨吸收量,但在远期边缘骨吸收量方面与常规种植无显著差异,在临床实际工作中可根据患者具体情况制定合适的种植方式。;

关键词: 上颌后牙区, Ⅲ类骨种植, 远期疗效, 边缘骨吸收量, 挤压种植术

Abstract: Objective： To study the compressive after planting technique of maxillary teeth area Ⅲ bone to grow forward curative effect and the influence of marginal bone absorption. Methods： From March 2012 to March 2013 in our hospital after accepting maxillary teeth area Ⅲ type of bone implant prosthesis treat- ment 86 cases(120) using the implant as research object. With implants as the research unit, the patients were divided into the study group (67 implants) and the control group(53 implants) according to whether they received squeeze implantation. The control group was treated with conventional implant implanta- tion, while the study group was treated with squeeze implantation. Patients in both groups were followed up for 5 years, and the 5-year success rate of implants in the two groups was calculated and compared. In addition, the amount of marginal bone absorption at different postoperative time points was compared be-tween the two groups. Results： The 5-year implant success rate of the study group and the control group was 98.51%(66/67) and 94.34% (50/53), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups(all P>0.05). The marginal bone absorption in the study group was(0.38±0.23)mm six months after implant implantation, which was higher than the control group (0.54±0.38)mm, and the difference was sta- tistically significant(P<0.05). 1 year after implantation, 2 years after implantation, and 3 years after im- plantation, the marginal bone absorption in the study group was(1.08±0.64)mm, (1.57±0.60)mm, (1.92± 0.78)mm, respectively. Compared with the control group (1.07±0.59) mm, (1.56±0.72) mm, (1.94±0.85) mm, there was no significant difference(P>0.05). The incidence rates of maxillary sinusitis, surgical site swelling and implant loosening and shedding in the study group were 0.00%(0/67), 1.49% (1/67) and 4.48%(3/67), respectively, which were not significantly different from those in the control group 1.89% (1/ 53), 3.77% (2/53) and 7.55% (4/53), with no statistical significance(all P>0.05). Conclusion： Extrusion for planting area after maxillary teeth Ⅲ kind of bone to grow forward curative effect is better, and effec- tively reduce marginal bone absorption in the short term, but in terms of the forward edge of bone absorp- tion and no significant differences, conventionally grown in clinical practice can be formulated on the ba- sis of the condition of the patients with appropriate ways of planting.

Key words: maxillary posterior tooth area, Ⅲ, bone to grow, long-term efficacy, marginal bone ab- sorption, extrusion implantation

中图分类号:

782.1

陈儒娜,符镇南,张佩芬,等. 挤压种植术对上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植远期疗效及边缘骨吸收量的影响[J]. 中国口腔种植学杂志, 2019, 24(2): 59-62. DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2019.06.003

CHEN Runa, FU Zhennan, ZHANG Peifen, et al. Squeeze the cultivation technique of maxillary teeth after Ⅲ class bone grow forward curative effect and the influence of marginal bone absorption[J].Chinese Journal of Oral Implantology, 2019, 24(2): 59-62.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2019.06.003.

参考文献

[1] 雷明辉, 姬小婷, 杨丹, 等. 原位植入并上颌窦内提同期种植治疗上颌后牙区牙缺失的临床研究[J]. 海南医学,2017, 28(10): 1605-1607
[2] 高巍, 李良玉, 张峰, 等. 经牙槽嵴顶入路非冲顶式上颌窦底提升及种植体同期植入术探讨[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2013, 48(3): 183-185
[3] 连卫娜. 联用骨挤压上颌窦内提升术与骨挤压种植术治疗上颌后牙区骨量不足的效果探析[J]. 当代医药论丛, 2016, 14(11): 140-141
[4] 李悦, 张燕婷, 何晶, 等. 联合应用骨劈开、骨挤压术、引导骨组织再生技术并同期种植手术方案的短期临床疗效分析[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2016, 9(9): 532-537
[5] 马鹏, 董跟喜, 杨兰, 等. 微创骨挤压技术在上颌窦区后牙种植修复中的临床应用[J]. 兰州大学学报(医学版),2013, 39(1): 62-65
[6] 陈庆生, 龚正伟, 李小凤, 等. 上颌窦内提升术同期种植体植入术在修复上颌后牙缺失伴颌骨骨量不足病例中的应用[J]. 口腔医学, 2013, 33(11): 776-778
[7] 廖仟, 王云霁, 张维奕, 等. 青少年骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)畸形上颌后牙区微种植体植入的安全性探讨[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2018, 27(4): 370-375
[8] 吴松涛, 孟维艳, 蔡青, 等. 骨挤压及骨挤压与PTH(1-34)联合应用对骨质疏松兔种植体周围骨结合影响的研究[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2012, 28(6): 695-698
[9] 孙嵩, 赵峰, 孙勇, 等. 骨挤压对种植体初期稳定性的影响[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2013, 11(15): 2698-2702
[10] 武秀萍, 李冰, 冯云霞, 等. 不同愈合时间下挤压植入种植体对Beagle犬骨界面改建的组织形态学测定[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(2) : 70-72
[11] 傅云婷, 汪永跃, 左艳萍, 等. 不同程度的骨挤压对犬松质骨的生物力学影响[J]. 山西医科大学学报, 2017, 48(7): 691-694
[12] 宋飞翔, 薛浩伟, 潘涛, 等. 引导骨再生术结合骨挤压在单颗上颌前牙同期种植中的应用[J]. 安徽医药, 2017, 21(11): 2005-2008
[13] 谢艳婷, 葛鑫, 顾舒扬, 等. 常规种植术与骨挤压种植术对上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植5年成功率及边缘骨吸收量的影响比较研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2018, 11(5): 282-285
[14] 陈爱和, 邓秋明, 李惠山, 等. 骨挤压器在闭合式上颌窦提升种植术中的临床应用[J]. 中国医疗器械信息, 2017,23(2): 27-30
[15] 张剑锋, 吴小芳, 邱永珍, 等. 骨挤压器在闭合式上颌窦提升种植术中的应用效果观察[J]. 实用中西医结合临床, 2018, 18(7): 104-105
[16] 朱宇驰, 王雨薇, 郭晓东, 等. 不同骨挤压手术设计对种植术后骨改建的影响[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 34(7):717-720