MK1附着体在老年患者单侧远中游离缺失修复中的临床应用

目的：评价MK1附着体修复老年患者单侧远中游离缺失的临床效果。方法：采用MK1附着体为23例单侧后牙游离缺失的老年患者进行修复治疗,经过8-44个月的随访,从主观感受、临床及X线检查评价修复效果。结果：所有患者对MK1附着体义齿的美观舒适性、固位力、咀嚼效能均感到满意;21例患者认为其摘戴方便。经配对t检验,MKl附着体义齿与原可摘义齿相比在美观舒适性、固位力、咀嚼效能方面均有明显优势（P〈0．05）;而在摘戴方面基本没有差别妒〉0．05）。2例患者出现了牙龈炎症,牙周治疗后炎症消失。3例患者进行了义齿可摘部分的重衬,其余患者基牙及缺牙区牙槽嵴无异常。结论：MK1附着体义齿稳定及固位性能良好,是一种较理想的修复老年患者单侧后牙游离缺失的修复体。     

两种附着体义齿修复后牙游离缺失的临床效果评价

目的研究MK1和Asc-52精密附着体在后牙游离缺失修复中的临床效果。方法36例后牙游离缺失患者分为2组,分别采用MK1和Asc-52精密附着体义齿修复,随访2年,进行临床观察和X线检查,对2种附着体义齿的修复效果进行综合评价。结果2组36例患者对附着体义齿修复均感觉美观舒适,语音正常,咀嚼功能佳,修复体稳固。临床复查基牙无松动,牙龈无退缩,义齿组织面牙龈无肿胀、无压痛,义齿稳固无摆动;X线检查示牙槽骨无吸收,根尖无病变。MK1组中4例患者由于钥匙孔太靠远中,摘戴有些不便。结论修复后牙游离缺失,MK1和Asc-52精密附着体义齿都是比较理想的选择。     

MK1锁式附着体修复单侧游离端多数牙缺失患者的临床效果观察

[摘要] 目的 使用MK1锁式附着体义齿修复单侧磨牙与前磨牙全部缺失的牙列缺损,观察探讨其临床使用效果。方法 采用MK1锁式附着体,为10例单侧磨牙与前磨牙全部缺失的牙列缺损患者制作锁式附着体固位可摘义齿。结果 随访6～24个月,10例患者中,除1例患者义齿损坏,经过简单修理后患者满意,其余9例患者均感觉义齿美观舒适,固位稳定,咀嚼良好。结论 MK1锁式附着体义齿修复单侧磨牙与前磨牙全部缺失的牙列缺损患者可达到较好的临床效果。     

MK1精密附着体义齿修复Kennedy П类牙列缺损临床评估

目的：临床研究KennedyП类牙列缺损采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复的效果。方法：28例对于原先普通可摘局部义齿不满意的KennedyП类牙列缺损患者，均采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复。结果：经过3个月至3年随访，100％的患者表示对该义齿的固位性能、咀嚼效能、舒适程度以及装卸的方便程度感到满意。义齿损坏2例经过简单修理后患者满意。4例保存X线片资料完整者经过3至18个月观察，基牙牙槽骨未见明显吸收。结论：MK1精密附着体义齿修复KennedyП类牙列缺损患者，满意度明显优于普通可摘局部义齿。临床观察还提示，MK1义齿尚不致造成短期基牙牙槽骨损害。     

MK1冠外被动制锁式附着体义齿的临床应用

目的 探讨MK1附着体义齿修复远中游离缺失的临床效果.方法 33例双侧或单侧远中游离端牙缺失患者行MK1附着体义齿修复,随访2个月～2年.结果 1例修复2年时出现咀嚼痛,检查发现缺牙区牙槽骨吸收,重衬可摘义齿后症状消失.1例锁轴脱落,重配卡簧.其余患者反映义齿固位良好,异物感小.结论 MK1附着体义齿适宜修复远中游离端牙缺失.     

MK1精密附着体义齿修复KennedyП类牙列缺损临床评估

目的:临床研究KennedyП类牙列缺损采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复的效果。方法:28例对于原先普通可摘局部义齿不满意的KennedyП类牙列缺损患者,均采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复。结果:经过3个月至3年随访,100%的患者表示对该义齿的固位性能、咀嚼效能、舒适程度以及装卸的方便程度感到满意。义齿损坏2例经过简单修理后患者满意。4例保存X线片资料完整者经过3至18个月观察,基牙牙槽骨未见明显吸收。结论:MK1精密附着体义齿修复KennedyП类牙列缺损患者,满意度明显优于普通可摘局部义齿。临床观察还提示,MK1义齿尚不致造成短期基牙牙槽骨损害。     

附着体固位可摘义齿临床应用

目的：观察不同类型附着体固位可摘义齿的临床效果。方法：采用冠外精密附着体、磁性附着体、套筒冠作为固位装置制作可摘义齿,对游离端缺失下颌义齿和多牙缺失病例32例进行修复。随访6个月～3年,对义齿美观舒适性、固位力、咀嚼功能、摘戴适应情况及基牙松动、义齿下沉加衬情况进行观察。结果：所有病例对义齿美观舒适、固位力、咀嚼功能均感满意。30例对义齿摘戴适应（93．75％）,2例感到义齿摘取不便（按扣式、套筒冠义齿各1例）。结论：附着体固位可摘义齿兼有固定、活动义齿的优点,能达到良好的临床修复效果。     

MK1精密附着体义齿修复KennedyⅡ类牙列缺损临床评估

目的:临床研究Kennedy Ⅱ类牙列缺损采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复的效果.方法:28例对于原先普通可摘局部义齿不满意的KennedyⅡ类牙列缺损患者,均采用MK1精密附着体义齿进行修复.结果:经过3个月至3年随访,100%的患者表示对该义齿的固位性能、咀嚼效能、舒适程度以及装卸的方便程度感到满意.义齿损坏2例经过简单修理后患者满意.4例保存X线片资料完整者经过3至18个月观察,基牙牙槽骨未见明显吸收.结论:MK1精密附着体义齿修复KennedyⅡ类牙列缺损患者,满意度明显优于普通可摘局部义齿.临床观察还提示,MK1义齿尚不致造成短期基牙牙槽骨损害.     

MK1精密附着体义齿与卡环式活动义齿的咀嚼效能比较

目的评价MK1附着体在肯氏Ⅱ类牙列缺损修复中的临床效果,及与相应的卡环式活动义齿的咀嚼效能比较。方法采用MK1附着体30副,修复30例上颌单侧末端游离牙列缺损,此前患者均经卡环式活动义齿修复,比较两者的临床效果和咀嚼效能。结果经过相同时间的临床观察和实验,MK-1附着体的咀嚼效能高于卡环式活动义齿(P＜0.001);90%以上的患者认为附着体义齿美观、舒适、稳固、咀嚼有力。结论MK1附着体义齿的咀嚼效能、美观舒适性较卡环式活动义齿好。     

应用精密附着体修复单侧游离缺失的临床观察

目的：对多个磨牙游离端缺失后应用精密附着体进行单侧修复设计进行临床观察,探讨其修复效果。方法：采用Bredent SG Vario Snap附着体,为38例多个磨牙游离端缺失的患者,制作38件精密附着体义齿,临床随访0．5～4年,分别从主观感觉、口腔检查和X线检查等三方面观察其修复效果。结果：患者进行单侧修复设计后美观效果满意,异物感小,不影响发音,固位稳定效果好,其中31例与以前的双侧修复设计相比,明显感觉较以前舒适,修复效果满意;3例患者在义齿使用1年或3年后附着体活动部分咬合面断裂;34例患者基牙无病变,义齿受力区牙槽嵴黏膜无红肿、压痛。4例患者的远中基牙牙槽嵴顶吸收,硬骨板消失。结论：应用精密附着体对多个磨牙游离端缺失进行单侧设计,具有可实施性。     

磁性附着体义齿修复的五年观察及并发症防治

目的:评价磁性附着体义齿修复的长期疗效,探寻其并发症防治策略。方法:对33例共使用61副Magfit磁性附着体行可摘局部义齿修复的患者完成5年随访观察。结果:磁性附着体活动义齿舒适、稳定,长期临床效果满意,但有4副附着体磁体脱落,19颗基牙出现龈缘炎,基牙临床指数除牙龈指数有显著差异外,出血指数、牙周袋指数、松动度均与修复前无明显差异。结论:应用磁性附着体进行活动义齿修复5年观察疗效满意,但磁体粘固方式有待改进。     

附着体数量分布对固位力影响的测试

目的：对不同数量及分布的钉幅附着体固位力进行测试，为临床应用提供参考依据。方法：分别制作不同的附着体测试模型，用固位力测试仪进行测试。结果：附着体越多，固位力越大；3个附着体固位，受相互制约作用影响，平均每个附着体的固位力要大于单个附着体的固位力。附着体处加载所测的固位力明显大于单个附着体的固位力，显示其协同作用，附着体安置的距离影响固位力的大小，距离远固位力增加。结论：使用两个附着体的设计，其固位力一般都能满足临床需要，过多使用附着体可能导致脱位困难。     

两种游离端半精密附着体可摘局部义齿的应力分析

目的:研究双侧游离缺失活动义齿使用两种不同类型的半精密附着体固位时周围支持骨的表面应力。方法:采用电阻应变测量法在人体下颌骨标本上测量以冠内栓道式及冠外垂直杆式半精密附着体固位的双侧游离缺失活动)固定联合修复体的表面应力值并做统计分析。结果:冠内附着体在基牙周围牙槽骨上产生的总体应力较大,而冠外附着体在缺牙区牙槽嵴和近缺隙侧基牙远中颈部牙槽嵴上产生的应力较大。结论:冠内附着体适用于远中基牙牙周条件良好的情况,而冠外附着体则适用于缺牙区牙槽嵴条件良好、远中基牙条件相对欠佳的情况。     

Effects of attachment type on the mobility of implant-stabilized overdentures--an in vitro study

PURPOSE: To stabilize overdentures, a wide range of attachments to implants is suggested. Although there is evidence that denture stability is an important factor for patient satisfaction, there are no data on how these attachments may reduce denture mobility. It was the purpose of this study to compare the effects of different types of attachments on the mobility of implant-stabilized overdentures in vitro, designing a measurement device that could also be used in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On an acrylic model with 2 implants in the canine areas, magnets were fixed to one of the implant abutments. Four Hall-effect devices were attached to the denture opposite the magnet, which allowed contact-free measurements of denture movements. RESULTS: In vitro experiments loading an overdenture showed very small, largely insignificant differences in denture mobility when different bar or ball attachments were used. Geometric aspects of load application were more important than the choice of attachment. CONCLUSION: The measurements gave no guide to the choice of an attachment. The similarity of the attachments must be confirmed by in vivo measurements.     

Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) determine patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures using magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket attachments; and (2) assess the relation between maximum bite force and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-over clinical trial, 18 edentulous patients with mandibular denture complaints received two mandibular implants and new mandibular and maxillary dentures. The mandibular denture was initially without any kind of attachment system, but it was fitted with one of the attachment types after 3 months. The attachments were changed 3 months thereafter, in random order. A questionnaire on denture complaints was administered at baseline (with the old denture), after 3 months of function with the new denture without attachments, and after 3 months of function with each of the attachments (within-subject comparison). In addition, patients were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a VAS. Patients' preferences were determined at the end of the experiment. Maximum bite forces were obtained from a previous study with the same population. Five scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores at the five evaluation points were compared among the groups. Pearson correlation was calculated between maximum bite force and scale and VAS scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Mandibular implant-supported overdenture treatment reduced various denture complaints. The VAS score better reflected patients' preferences than did scale score. Patients strongly preferred bar-clip (10/18 subjects) and ball-socket attachments (7/18 subjects) over magnet attachments (1/18 subjects). Patients' preferences could not be predicted on the basis of baseline observations. Maximum bite force was not correlated to scale or VAS score. Hence, patients with higher maximum bite forces were not necessarily more satisfied.     

Locator附着体和球帽附着体在种植覆盖义齿中的临床修复效果比较

目的探讨球帽基台和locator基台在种植体覆盖义齿(IODs)修复中临床效果的比较。方法选择单颌牙根嵴严重萎缩全口无牙颌患者27例,共计54枚种植体,其中球基台附着体26枚,locator基台附着体28枚。上部修复完成后6个月复诊并每年随访,从种植体、牙周黏膜、附着体等方面进行复查,统计其总的并发症发生率并对患者的满意度进行评价。结果两种基台支持式覆盖义齿患者的满意度明显高于普通全口义齿(P<0.05)。2年后两种附着体种植覆盖义齿边缘骨吸收率(BML)没有差别(P>0.05)。locator基台支持的覆盖义齿并发症的发生率仅为14.28%,球帽种植覆盖义齿总的并发症发生率为38.46%。结论 locator基台和球帽基台支持式全口义齿均优于常规全口义齿,locator基台产生的并发症更少。     

Clinical application of stress-breaking ball attachment for implant overdenture

PatientThe patient was a 62-year-old partially edentulous woman with missing bilateral premolars and molars in the mandibular jaw. The patient selected implant supported-removable partial denture rehabilitation. Implants were placed bilaterally at the distal extension of the denture base in order to minimize denture displacement. The stress-breaking ball (SBB) attachment consists of a flat-top ball head male and O-ring rubber female. The female was covered by a silicone housing with three amounts of space to allow three kinds of settlement (0.3 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.7 mm); they were selected by thickness or pressure displacement of the mucosa and occlusal force. After the healing period, the SBB attachments (0.3 mm) were placed on the implants, and the implant-supported removable partial denture was then conventionally fabricated. The delivered denture had sufficient retention and appropriate stress breaking.DiscussionThe advantages of SBB attachments over conventional attachments are as follows: (1) they prevent the implant from excessive occlusal force, (2) they are ready-made, (3) they show appropriate retention, and (4) they can be easily mounted on the denture base. The disadvantages of these attachments are as follows: (1) they are approximately 1 mm higher than conventional ball attachments and (2) the retentive force cannot be adjusted.ConclusionThe use of a stress-breaking attachment for implant overdenture rehabilitation should be considered so that the occlusal force is equally distributed between the alveolar ridge and the implants.