中国实用口腔科杂志

中国实用口腔科杂志

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

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

谢艳婷，葛鑫，顾舒扬，张燕婷，江鹭鹭，何晶，尚德浩，邓春富，赵宝红   

  1. 中国医科大学口腔医学院·附属口腔医院种植中心，辽宁省口腔医学研究所口腔种植研究室，辽宁  沈阳  110002
  • 出版日期:2018-05-15 发布日期:2018-06-05
  • 基金资助:

    辽宁省自然科学基金（20170541059）；辽宁省科技计划项目（2013225049）；沈阳市科技计划项目（F11-264-1-25）

  • Online:2018-05-15 Published:2018-06-05

摘要：

目的　比较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。方法　选择2010年1月至2011年12月在中国医科大学附属口腔医院种植中心行上颌后牙区种植修复并且骨质分类为Ⅲ类骨的患者82例（共使用111颗种植体）。以种植体为研究单位，根据是否行骨挤压术，将纳入的病例分为常规种植术组（53颗种植体）和骨挤压种植术组（58颗种植体）。术后随访5年，计算两组种植体5年成功率，并测量种植体植入后半年和1、2、3年时的种植体边缘骨吸收量。比较上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨行常规种植术与骨挤压种植术对种植体5年成功率及种植体边缘骨吸收量的影响。结果　常规种植术组和骨挤压种植术组种植体5年成功率分别为96.23%和98.28%，两组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。种植体植入后半年时，骨挤压种植术组的种植体边缘骨吸收量明显小于常规种植术组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05），而植入后1、2、3年时两组的种植体边缘骨吸收量差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论　常规种植术和骨挤压种植术对种植体的5年成功率及远期边缘骨吸收量的影响无明显差异。因此，临床中对于上颌后牙区Ⅲ类骨种植病例，术者可根据种植体初期稳定性的需要决定是否行骨挤压术。

关键词: 上颌后牙区, 常规种植, 骨挤压, 成功率, 边缘骨吸收

Abstract:

Objective    To compare the five-year success rate of implant and the alveolar bone absorption around the implants implanted with conventional drilling technique or osteotome technique in the posterior maxilla which is Ⅲ sclerotin. Methods    A total of 111 implants from 82 cases treated in the Oral Implantology Center of Affiliated Dental Hospital of China Medical University in the posterior maxilla （Ⅲ sclerotin） between January 2010 and December 2011 were enrolled in this study. According to whether with osteotome technique or not，these cases were divided into conventional drilling technique group and osteotome technique group. Postoperative follow-up lasted for 5 years； calculate the five-year success rate of the two groups and the alveolar bone absorption around the implants at the first half year，1 year，2 years and 3 years after implantation；compare the five-year success rate and the alveolar bone absorption around the implants implanted with conventional drilling technique or osteotome technique in the posterior maxilla which is Ⅲ sclerotin. Results　The five-year success rate of conventional drilling technique group and osteotome technique group in the posterior maxilla （Ⅲ sclerotin） was 96.23% and 98.28% respectively，the differences being insignificant （P > 0.05）. The differences in the alveolar bone absorption around the implants was insignificant （P > 0.05） at the lst，2nd and 3rd year of implantation，but was significant in the first half year after implantation （P < 0.05）. Conclusion　In the implanting in posterior maxilla（Ⅲsclerotin），no significant statistical differences in the five-year success rate or the alveolar bone absorption around the implants is found long-term effects between the two methods. Therefore，in implantion of Ⅲ sclerotin in posterior maxilla，performer of the implantation can decide whether osteotome technique is performed according to the early stability of the implant.

Key words: posterior maxilla, conventional drilling, osteotome, success rate, alveolar bone absorption