中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (1): 28-33.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2022.02.006

• • 上一篇    下一篇

82颗失败种植体的影响因素分析

张皖婷, 何家才   

  1. 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院口腔种植中心,合肥 230032
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-25 出版日期:2022-02-10 发布日期:2022-03-09
  • 通讯作者: 何家才,Email:hejiacai@163.com,电话:0551-65118677-8705

Department of Oral Implantology, Hospital of Stomatology,Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230032, China

Zhang Wanting, He Jiacai   

  1. Department of Oral Implantology, Hospital of Stomatology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei230032, China
  • Received:2021-11-25 Online:2022-02-10 Published:2022-03-09
  • Contact: He Jiacai, Email, hejiacai@163.com, Tel:0086-551-65118677-8705

摘要: 目的 分析种植体失败的影响因素,以期为临床工作提供理论依据。方法 收集2012年1月至2021年1月于安徽医科大学附属口腔医院种植中心接受种植治疗且病历资料完整的病例,选出种植体失败的病例,以种植体为单位,分析性别、年龄、牙周病史、手术部位、外科手术及种植体相关因素对种植体失败的影响。采用统计学软件SPSS 24.0,经卡方检验及Fisher精确检验筛选出有统计学意义的变量,纳入二元Logistic回归分析,P<0.05表示统计学有显著性差异。结果 9年间共植入6124颗种植体,其中失败种植体共计82颗,种植体失败率为1.34%。早期种植体失败72颗,晚期种植体失败10颗,失败率分别为1.18%和0.16%。统计分析显示,男性比女性种植体失败的可能性高(P<0.001),种植体直径<4.0 mm、种植体长度<10 mm、Ⅳ类骨质种植体失败率高(P<0.01),行穿牙槽嵴上颌窦底提升(transalveolar technique for sinus floor elevation,TTSF)比不行TTSF手术种植体失败的可能性高(P<0.001),未行大颗粒喷砂酸蚀(sandblasted large-grit acid-etched, SLA)表面处理种植体比SLA(含SLActive)表面处理种植体失败的可能性高(P=0.001);而年龄、上下颌骨、手术部位、种植体形状(是否为锥形)、是否行侧壁开窗上颌窦底提升(lateral approach of sinus floor elevation,LASF)及引导骨再生(guided bone regeneration,GBR)对种植体失败影响无统计学意义。结论 与种植体失败有关的影响因素包括男性、Ⅳ类骨、种植体直径<4 mm、种植体长度<10 mm、非SLA表面处理种植体、行TTSF及牙周病史。

关键词: 种植体, 失败, 原因, 危险因素

Abstract: Objective To analyze impact factors of failed dental implant cases, and provide the theoretical guidance for clinical operation. Methods Cases in the Center of Oral Implantology from January 2012 to January 2021 with complete medical records were selected. The differences of gender, age, periodontal disease status, location of implants, implant, and surgical factors were compared between failed implants and successful implants. Statistical analysis software was SPSS 24.0. Statistical methods were the χ² test, Fisher’s Exact Test, and binary logistic regression. The level of statistical significance is expressed as P< 0.05. Results A total of 6124 implant cases were included in this study including 82 failed cases. The implant failure rate was 1.34%. There were 72 early failed cases and 10 late failed, with failure rates of 1.18% and 0.16%. Statistics results showed that the failure risk of men was higher than that of women (P< 0.001). Cases with implant diameter < 4.0 mm, implant length < 10 mm, and bone quality type Ⅳ showed a higher failure rate (P< 0.01). The failure risk in cases with internal sinus floor elevation (ISFE) was higher than those without the surgery (P< 0.001). The implant surface which were not sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) had a higher failure rate than those of SLA and SLActive (P=0.001). Age, upper or lower jaw, surgical site, the shape of implants, lateral approach of sinus floor elevation (LASF), and guided bone regeneration (GBR) had no statistical significance for dental implant failure. Conclusion The risk factors for the failure of dental implants were male, bone quality typeⅣ, implant diameter< 4 mm, implant length< 10 mm, non-SLA implant surface, ISFE surgical treatment, and periodontal disease.

Key words: Dental implant, Failure, Reasons, Risk factors