中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (5): 292-298.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2022.10.006

• 论著·临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

数字化外科导板在口腔种植修复中的应用分析

庞莉苹, 许铭炎, 郭伟忠, 左起亮   

  1. 厦门医学院附属口腔医院 厦门市口腔医院 361008
  • 收稿日期:2022-06-14 出版日期:2022-10-30 发布日期:2022-11-01
  • 通讯作者: 庞莉苹,Email:349315006@qq.com,电话:0592-2669535
  • 作者简介:庞莉苹, 硕士、副主任医师,研究方向:牙列缺损及牙列缺失的种植修复治疗,前牙美学修复等

Analysis of the use of digital surgical guides in dental implant restoration

Pang Liping, Xu Mingyan, Guo Weizhong, Zuo Qiliang   

  1. Stomatological Hospital of Xiamen Medical College; Xiamen Stomatological Hospital, 361008, China
  • Received:2022-06-14 Online:2022-10-30 Published:2022-11-01
  • Contact: Pang Liping, Email:349315006@qq.com, Tel: 0086-592-2669535

摘要: 目的 探讨数字化外科导板技术对口腔种植精度的影响。方法 选取口腔种植修复患者33例,分为数字化外科导板指导种植修复组(A组,n=17)和自由手种植修复组(B组,n=16),A组和B组分别植入种植体41颗和48颗,CBCT记录和比较两种方法在种植体颈部、根部、深度和角度上的偏差值,并分析该值与前牙区、后牙区及种植体品牌间的关联。结果 颈部偏差值A组(1.50±0.49)mm小于B组(2.15±0.57)mm(P<0.05);根部偏差值A组(1.56±0.56)mm小于B组(2.19±0.50)mm(P<0.05);深度偏差值A组(1.40±0.40)mm小于B组(1.80±0.43)mm(P<0.05);角度偏差值A组(3.39°±0.62°)小于B组(3.92°±0.55°)(P<0.05)。在种植导板引导下,前牙区及后牙区偏差值间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);3种品牌种植体间比较,颈部与根部偏差值差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),深度与角度偏差值差异无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论 采用数字化外科导板进行口腔种植修复可优化种植精度,有利于提升修复质量。

关键词: 种植义齿, 数字化导板技术, 牙列缺损

Abstract: Objective To investigate the effect of digital guided technology on the accuracy of oral implant restoration. Methods 33 patients with oral implant restorations were selected. The digital guided technology restoration was Group A, free-handed implant restoration was Group B . There are 41 implants in group A, and 48 implants in Group B. cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to record and compare the deviation values of the two methods in implant neck, root, depth and angle. Results The implant neck deviation in Group A [(1.50±0.49) mm] was less than that in Group B [(2.15±0.57) mm] (P<0.05).The root deviation in Group A [(1.56±0.56) mm] was less than that in Group B [(2.19±0.50) mm], and the difference was comparable (P<0.05).The depth deviation in Group A [(1.40±0.40) mm] was less than that in Group B [(1.80±0.43) mm], and the difference was comparable (P< 0.05). The angle deviation in Group A (3.39°±0.62°) was less than that in Group B (3.92°±0.55°), and the difference was comparable (P<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the anterior and posterior regions using digital guided surgery (P<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the implant neck deviation and the root deviation when comparing the three brands of implants using the digital guided technology (P<0.05); while there was no statistically significant difference between the depth deviation and the angle deviation when comparing the three brands of implants using the digital guided technology (P>0.05). Conclusion Using digital technology for dental implant restoration can optimize the precision of implant and improve the quality of restoration.

Key words: Implant denture, Digital guided technology, Dentition defect