中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (3): 159-163.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2021.06.003

• 论著·临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

口腔种植个性化软组织印模的改良方法与应用评价

韩欣欣, 李雅瑾, 刘晓强   

  1. 北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院修复科 国家口腔医学中心 国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心 口腔数字化医疗技术和材料国家工程实验室 100081
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-18 出版日期:2021-06-10 发布日期:2021-07-14
  • 通讯作者: 刘晓强,Email: liuxiaoqiang@bjmu.edu.cn,电话:010-82195393
  • 作者简介:韩欣欣, 主管护师,主要研究方向:口腔修复护理;刘晓强, 副教授、副主任医师,主要研究方向:口腔美学修复、口腔种植修复
  • 基金资助:
    北京大学口腔医院临床新技术新疗法项目(PKUSSNCT-19A03)

Modification and evaluation of a custom impression technique for soft tissue around dental implant

Han Xinxin, Li Yajin, Liu Xiaoqiang   

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2021-05-18 Online:2021-06-10 Published:2021-07-14
  • Contact: Liu Xiaoqiang, Email: liuxiaoqiang@bjmu.edu.cn,Tel: 0086-10-82195393
  • Supported by:
    Program for New Clinical Techniques and Therapies of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology (PKUSSNCT-19A03)

摘要: 目的 对口腔种植个性化软组织印模技术进行改良,比较传统法和改良法制作个性化转移杆的临床用时和耗材用量,评价改良法的临床适用性。方法 2020年10月至12月,从北京大学口腔医院修复科收集20颗上颌前牙种植临时冠,采用自身对照的方法,分别按照传统法和改良法制作个性化转移杆。传统法使用油泥型硅橡胶制作阴模,复制临时冠颈部形态,再依此制作个性化转移杆。改良法首先制作通用型预成底座(可重复利用),结合流动性硅橡胶形成阴模,再制作个性化转移杆。记录并比较两种方法的临床用时和耗材用量。结果 临床用时方面,改良法制作阴模的时间(323.6±20.3)s显著低于传统法(482.8±43.5)s,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);改良法和传统法的个性化转移杆成型时间分别为(215.6±9.8)s和(213.4±10.9)s,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。耗材用量方面,改良法不需使用化学固化树脂,传统法的化学固化树脂用量为(427.5±72.2)mg;改良法的硅橡胶用量(524.5±29.1)mg显著低于传统法(14473.1±732.6)mg,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);改良法和传统法的模型树脂用量分别为(82.0±17.4)mg和(80.0±13.4)mg,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 改良法制作口腔种植个性化转移杆的临床用时和耗材用量均少于传统法。采用改良法制取口腔种植个性化软组织印模,可节省椅旁操作时间、节约耗材用量、降低成本,值得在临床推广使用。

关键词: 口腔种植, 美学, 穿龈轮廓, 印模

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to modify the custom impression technique for soft tissue around a dental implant, to compare the clinical working time and material consumption for fabricating custom impression coping with conventional and modified methods, and to evaluate the clinical applicability of the modified method. Methods From October to December 2020, 20 implant-supported interim restorations of the maxillary anterior teeth were collected in the Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology. The conventional and modified methods were used to fabricate custom impression coping by self-controlled trial. Within the conventional method, a silicone matrix was used to capture the emergence profile of the interim restoration, thereafter a custom impression coping was made accordingly. In the modified method, a prefabricated reusable resin base embedding an implant analog was made. The base and a flowable silicone were used to register the soft-tissue transition zone created by the interim restoration. Finally, the tissue contour was transferred to the impression post. The working time and material consumption of the two methods were recorded and compared. Results In terms of clinical time, the average time of fabricating the index by the modified method was (323.6±20.3)s, which was significantly lower than that of the conventional method (482.8±43.5)s The average time of making impression coping with the conventional and modified methods were (213.4±10.9) s and (215.6±9.8) s, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). In terms of the material consumption, the improved method does not require the use of self-cure resin, while the average weight of the self-cure resin of the conventional methods were (427.5±72.2) mg. There was significant difference between the two groups (P< 0.05). Regarding the consumption of the silicone matrix, the modified method was (524.5±29.1) mg, which was significantly lower than that of the conventional method (14473.1±732.6)mg. The difference between the two methods was significant. The average weight of pattern resin of the conventional and modified methods were (80.0±13.4) mg and (82.0±17.4) mg, respectively. The difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). Conclusions The clinical working time and material consumption spent on fabricating the custom impression coping by the modified method were less than those of the conventional method. Therefore, the modified method of custom impression for soft tissue may save chairside time and materials. It is worthy of clinical application..

Key words: Dental implant, Esthetic, Emergence profile, Impression