美学区连续多牙种植数字化预成修复与常规临时修复效果对比研究OACSTPCD
Comparative study on the effect of digital prefabricated restoration and conventional temporary restoration for continuous multi-dental implants in the aesthetic area
目的 对比研究数字化预成修复与常规临时修复在美学区连续多牙种植修复中应用的效果.方法 选取2021年8月至2022年8月于大连市口腔医院种植科就诊需行美学区连续多牙种植修复患者20例,采用随机数字表法将患者分为2组,分别记为数字化组(10例,37个龈乳头位点)和常规组(10例,37个龈乳头位点).数字化组术前精准设计带翼板的中空预成临时修复体穿龈区及邻接区位置,在数字化导板引导下行种植一期手术并戴用数字化预成修复体;常规组自由手植入种植体,并采用常规方式制作临时修复体.永久修复后12个月,比较2组种植体存留率、修复体存留率,并使用Jemt龈乳头指数(papilla index score,PIS)对龈乳头充盈效果进行评分.结果 2组种植体存留率和修复体存留率均为100％.永久修复后12个月,2组PIS评分分布情况比较,差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.001,P＜0.001);其中,数字化组PIS为3分的位点32个(占86.49％),明显大于常规组(19个,占51.35％).数字化组PIS评分为(2.95±0.33)分,常规组PIS评分为(2.27±0.90)分,其差异有统计学意义(t=4.280,P＜0.001).其中,种植体与种植体间位点2组PIS评分比较,差异具有统计学意义(t=4.479,P＜0.001);而种植体与天然牙间及种植体与桥体间位点2组PIS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 与常规组相比,数字化组可精准设计预成修复体邻接区位置,永久修复后12个月具有更佳的龈乳头美学效果,建议在美学区连续多牙种植修复中广泛应用.
Objective To compare the effect of digital preformed restoration and conventional temporary restoration in continuous multi-tooth implant restoration in the aesthetic area.Methods A total of 20 patients requiring continuous multi-tooth implant restoration in the aesthetic area were selected from the Department of Implantology of Dalian Stoma-tological Hospital from August 2021 to August 2022.The patients were divided into 2 groups by random number table method and recorded as the digital group(10 cases,37 gingival papilla sites)and the conventional group(10 cases,37 gingival papilla sites)respectively.In the digital group,the location of the perforating gingival area and adjacent area of the hollow prefabricated temporary prosthesis with wing plate was precisely designed before surgery,and the digital pre-fabricated prosthesis was implanted and wom under the guidance of the digital guide.In the conventional group,implants were implanted free hand and temporary restorations were made by conventional methods.At 12 months after permanent restoration,implant survival rate and prosthesis survival rate of the two groups were compared,and the filling effect of gingival papilla was scored using Jemt papilla index score(PIS).Results The survival rate of implants and prostheses in both groups was 100％.At 12 months after permanent restoration,the PIS score distribution between the two groups was compared,and the difference was statistically significant(Z=-4.001,P＜0.001).Among them,32 sites(86.49％)in the digital group had a PIS score of 3,which was significantly higher than that in the conventional group(19 sites,51.35％).The PIS score of the digital group was(2.95±0.33)and that of the conventional group was(2.27±0.90),and the difference was statistically significant(t=4.280,P＜0.001).Among them,the difference in PIS score between implant-implant was statistically significant(t=4.479,P＜0.001).There was no significant difference in PIS scores between implants and natural teeth or between implants and bridges(P＞0.05).Conclusion Compared with the conventional group,the digital group can accurately design the location of the adjacent area of the prefabricated prosthesis,and has a better aes-thetic effect of gingival papillae 12 months after permanent restoration,so it is suggested that it should be widely used in continuous multi-dental implant restoration in the aesthetic area.
王娜;夏婷
大连市口腔医院种植科,辽宁大连 116021口颌系统重建与再生全国重点实验室,口腔生物医学教育部重点实验室,口腔医学湖北省重点实验室,武汉大学口腔医(学)院种植科,湖北武汉 430079
口腔医学
牙种植数字化设计预成修复体美学区Jemt龈乳头指数
dental implantsdigital designprefabricated restorationthe aesthetic areaJemt gingival papilla index
《中国实用口腔科杂志》 2024 (002)
146-152 / 7
评论