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

拔牙位点保存后与同期引导骨再生术种植红色美学效果临床比较

段子文，马玉，王冰杰，阿孜古丽·阿扎提，尼加提·吐尔逊   

  1. 新疆医科大学第二附属医院口腔科，新疆  乌鲁木齐  830063
  • 出版日期:2018-05-15 发布日期:2018-06-05
  • 基金资助:

    中华口腔医学会西部行口腔医学临床科研基金项目（CSA-W2015-05）

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

摘要：

目的　评价美学区拔牙位点保存与同期行引导骨再生术（GBR）种植修复的红色美学效果。方法　随机选取2015年9月至2017年3月就诊于新疆医科大学第二附属医院口腔科美学区牙列缺损患者32例，以术式不同分组。A组14例，美学区拔牙位点保存后延期种植；B组18例，延期种植同期行GBR。上部结构修复完成后即刻和第6、9个月，由口腔修复医生和正畸医生对红色美学区进行红色美学指数评分（PES），并由患者对主观满意度进行视觉模拟评分（VAS）。结果　在修复后即刻和第6、9个月，A组PES评分分别为（11.54 ± 0.69）、（12.57 ± 0.63）和（11.93 ± 0.60）分，VAS评分分别为（8.64 ± 0.50）、（9.79 ± 0.43）和（8.17 ± 0.61）分；B组PES评分分别为（10.17 ± 0.38）、（11.16 ± 0.46）和（11.02 ± 0.45）分，VAS评分分别为（7.22 ± 0.64）、（8.06 ± 0.64）和（8.28 ± 0.67）分。A组各时间点的PES评分和VAS评分均优于B组（均P＜0.05），患者对红色美学效果满意度VAS评分与医生的PES评分明显相关（P＜0.05）。结论　美学区拔牙位点保存后种植修复的红色美学效果以及患者满意度优于同期行GBR的延期种植修复，患者满意度VAS评分与医生PES评分明显相关。

关键词: 引导性骨再生技术, 拔牙位点保存, 延期种植, 红色美学指数, 视觉模拟评分

Abstract:

Objective　The red aesthetic effects of the preservation of the tooth extraction site in the comparative esthetic area and the simultaneous guided bone regeneration （GBR） implantation. Methods　The linear regression of 32 patients underwent single-tooth delayed bone-level implantation in the esthetic zone. A group：14 patients who were carried out delayed implantation after extraction site preservation. B group 18 patients who underwent delayed implantation and Guided Bone Regeneration（GBR）in One-stage operation. the peri-implant soft tissue at baseline（implant placement）and at 6-month、9-month follow-up. Two observers who is a prosthodontist and a Orthodontic doctor assigned PES values to the peri-implant soft tissue in the photographs. Changes in PES value from baseline to 6-month、9-month follow-up were calculated. Degree of patient satisfaction was measured using a visual analogue scale（VAS）at 6-month、9-month follow-up. The correlation between the VAS and PES scores was calculated. Results　The PES score of group A was 11.54 ± 0.69，12.57 ± 0.63 and 11.93 ± 0.60 at 0，6 and 9 months of follow-up. The PES score of group B was 10.17 ± 0.38 ，11.16 ± 0.46 and 11.02 ± 0.45 at 0，6 and 9 months of follow-up. The VAS score of group A was 8.64 ± 0.50，9.79 ± 0.43 and 8.17 ± 0.61 at 0，6 and 9 months of follow-up. The VAS score of group B was 7.22 ± 0.64，8.06 ± 0.64 and 8.28 ± 0.67 at 0，6 and 9 months of follow-up. The PES and VAS scores were both better in group A than in group B；the VAS score was obviously related to PES score（P < 0.05）. Conclusion　The esthetic result of peri-implant soft tissue is markedly improved 6 months after restoration of the PFM crown. The PES of A group is better than PES of B group（P＜0.05）. The PES value can reflect the degree of patient satisfaction with the peri-implant soft tissue esthetic result.

Key words: guided bone regeneration；extraction site preservation； delayed implantation；pink esthetic score, PES；visual analogue score, VAS