种植基台材料对种植体周围软硬组织影响的前瞻性临床研究

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2024.1.17

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【摘要】目的探讨不同基台材料对种植体周围软硬组织的影响。方法前瞻性选取2019年1月至2020年12月我院收治的单颗前牙缺损行种植修复的75例患者，采用随机数字表法分为纯钛组、氧化锆组和氧化铝组3组，每组25例，分别采用相应材料的基台种植并完成单冠修复。观察并比较3组修复术后12月的种植体留存率、临床牙周指标、种植体边缘骨吸收量、粉色美学指数（pink esthetic score，PES）指数、白色美学指数（white esthetic score，WES）、口腔健康相关生活质量、满意度及并发症等情况。结果修复术后12月，纯钛组和氧化锆组种植体存留率为100%，无种植体松动、脱落等机械并发症，氧化铝组1例基台断裂，留存率96.0%。3组患者牙周探诊深度、龈沟出血指数及龈乳头指数无显著性差异（P>0.05），氧化锆组菌斑指数显著低于其他组（P<0.05）；纯钛组种植体边缘骨吸收量高于其他组（P<0.05）；3组PES均有显著性差异（P<0.05），氧化锆组>氧化铝组>纯钛组，WES无显著差异（P>0.05）；3组患者的口腔健康相关生活质量无显著性差异（P>0.05）；氧化锆组患者满意度高于其他组；3组患者生物并发症总发生率无显著差异（P>0.05）。结论对于单颗前牙缺损的治疗，采用3种材料基台的种植修复术短期留存率、临床生物学效果以及患者整体满意度相当，与纯钛基台相比，采用氧化锆和氧化铝基台种植修复边缘骨吸收减少，氧化锆基台的美学效果最好，患者对美观效果更满意

关键词: 种植体； , , 口腔材料； , , 基台； , , 氧化锆； , , 前牙缺损

Abstract: Objective To investigate the influence of different abutment materials on soft and hard tissues around implants. Methods A prospective study was conducted on 75 patients with a single anterior tooth defect requiring implant repair who were admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020. The patients were randomly divided into three groups by using a random number table method, with 25 patients in each group. Different materials were used to implant and complete single crown repair, and they were divided into a pure titanium group, a zirconia group, and an alumina group. The implant retention rate, clinical periodontal indicators, implant marginal bone resorption, pink aesthetic index (PES), white aesthetic index (WES), oral health related quality of life, satisfaction, and incidence of complications among the three groups at 12 months after restoration were observed and compared. Results After 12 months of repair, the retention rates of implants in both the pure titanium group and the zirconia group were 100%, with no mechanical complications such as implant loosening or detachment. In the alumina group, there was one abutment fracture, with a retention rate of 96.0%. There was no significant difference in PD, SBI, and PFI among the three groups (P>0.05), while the PLI of the zirconia group was significantly lower than that of the pure titanium and alumina groups (P<0.05). The bone resorption at the implant edge in the zirconia and alumina groups was lower than that in the pure titanium group (P<0.05). There was significant differences in the pink aesthetic index among the three groups (P<0.05), with zirconia group>alumina group>pure titanium group. There was no significant difference in the white aesthetic index and the quality of life related to oral health among the three groups of patients (P>0.05). Among the three groups of patients, the satisfaction of the zirconia group was higher than that of the other two groups. There was no significant difference in the total incidence of biological complications among the three patients (P>0.05). Conclusions For anterior dental implant restoration, the short-term retention rate, clinical biological effects, and overall patient satisfaction of using three types of material abutments are comparable. Compared with pure titanium abutments, using zirconia and alumina abutments for implant restoration reduces bone resorption at the edges. The use of zirconia abutments has the best aesthetic effect, and patients are more satisfied with the aesthetic effect.

Key words: Implants; , , Oral materials; , , Base platform; , , Zirconia; , , Anterior tooth defect

中图分类号:

胡硕红, 郑学彬, 李富杰, 王鸿. 种植基台材料对种植体周围软硬组织影响的前瞻性临床研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2024, 42(1): 94-98.

Hu Shuohong, Zheng Xuebin, Li Fujie, Wang Hong. Prospective clinical study on the effect of implant abutment materials on the soft and hard tissues around the implant[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2024, 42(1): 94-98.

参考文献 15

[1]	Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, et al. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review[J]. J Dent Res, 2012, 91(3): 242-248. DOI: 10.1177/0022034511431252.
[2]	于海洋, 孙蔓琳, 王中熠. 前牙种植基台的临床决策-Lights决策树[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志,2022, 40(5): 504-512. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq. 2022.05.002.
[3]	Molina A, Sanz-Sánchez I, Martín C, et al. The effect of one-time abutment placement on interproximal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissues: a prospective randomized clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(4): 443-452. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12818.
[4]	王俊祥, 孙江伟, 叶力思, 等. 动态加载下3种基台材料对上颌角度植入种植修复体周围骨应力的影响[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2023, 27(3): 398-405. DOI: 10.12307/2023.012.
[5]	余念, 俞青, 胡勤刚, 等. 口腔微笑美学的常用评估指标和方法[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志,2017, 10(1): 15-19. DOI: 10.19538/j.kq. 2017. 01.004.
[6]	Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile[J]. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1997, 25(4): 284-290. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x.
[7]	刘洪臣. 口腔种植修复的医学属性与发展导向[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2021, 56(12): 1155-1158. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20211116-00507.
[8]	严玲玲, 郑丽梅, 高杰, 等. 选择性激光熔融打印钛种植体的制备和表面优化处理及其成骨性能的研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(3): 313-318. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2018.03.016.
[9]	张继武, 荣起国. 医用钛合金材料对种植体生物力学行为的影响[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2020, 32(11): 2100-2104. DOI: 10.16182/j.issn1004731x.joss.19-fz0521.
[10]	Zhou Z, Shi Q, Wang J, et al. The unfavorable role of titanium particles released from dental implants[J]. Nanotheranostics, 2021, 5(3): 321-332. DOI: 7150.56401/NTNO.33732603.
[11]	魏晨旭, 何怡文, 王聃, 等. 组织工程学中骨修复材料的研究热点与进展[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2020, 24(10): 1615-1621. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1884.
[12]	郭亚娟, 郭晓宇. 牙种植体全瓷基台研究现状[J]. 口腔颌面修复学杂志, 2017, 18(5): 310-314. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-3761.2017.05.014.
[13]	万乾炳. 氧化锆基台的研究现状和临床应用效果[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2018, 45(1): 1-8. DOI: 10.7518/gjkq.2018.01.001.
[14]	刘振东, 秦泗河. 骨折固定的四维空间事件[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2020, 24(6): 903-910. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2452.
[15]	Vazouras K, Gholami H, Margvelashvili-Malament M, et al. An esthetic evaluation of different abutment materials in the anterior maxilla: a randomized controlled clinical trial using a crossover design[J]. J Prosthodont, 2022, 31(8): 673-680. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13520.