球帽附着体种植覆盖义齿在萎缩下颌无牙颌的应用

目的 探讨球帽附着体种植覆盖义齿在牙槽骨萎缩的下颌无牙颌病例中的应用。方法 用Endo—pore Dental Implant System种植体，球形基台和弹性橡皮帽，为15例牙槽嵴萎缩下颌无牙颌病人作球帽附着体种植覆盖义齿，观察义齿的固位力、稳定性和咀嚼功能，随访0．5—3年。结果 球帽附着体种植覆盖义齿能显著提高下颌全口义齿的固位力和稳定性，改善咀嚼功能，病人满意。结论 球帽附着体种植覆盖义齿修复能显著改善牙槽嵴萎缩的下颌全口义齿的功能。     

双种植体-杆卡固位覆盖义齿修复下颌无牙颌的临床应用

颏孔间双种植体固位的杆卡固定覆盖义齿能够为无牙颌患者提供良好的固位与稳定,临床工作中应根据患者的客观条件合理应用。本文依据杆卡附着体特点及修复空间的要求,探讨并归纳颏孔间双种植体-杆卡固定覆盖义齿修复的诊疗步骤,并附以病例说明。     

下颌球帽附着体覆盖义齿应力研究

目的 分析不同球帽附着体下颌覆盖义齿在不同加载力作用下基托及支持组织所受的应力.方法 采用电阻应变测量法测量下颌球帽附着体覆盖义齿的应力,比较使用不同类型球帽附着体时,下颌覆盖义齿的应力变化.结果 使用金属球帽附着体比使用塑料球帽附着体牙根表面、义齿基托舌侧正中的应变值小,但后牙区 牙槽嵴顶粘膜表面应变值较大.义齿基托...     

球帽型附着体在下颌覆盖义齿修复中的应用

目的 探讨球帽型附着体在游离牙列缺失义齿修复中的临床应用及效果。方法 选择12个双侧游离端缺失且基牙较少的病例，应用球帽型附着体制作覆盖义齿，对其进行6个月到3年的临床效果观察。结果 12例患者使用义齿固位良好，无损坏，基牙无松动，美观舒适，咀嚼功能好。结论 球帽型附着体式覆盖义齿是一种美观、舒适、固位良好的修复体。     

种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖全口义齿的临床应用

目的评价种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖全口义齿的临床应用效果。方法 2006年6月至2010年5月完成种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖全口义齿修复15例,每位患者植入2枚种植体,共植入30枚,随访时间1～4年。结果 15例种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖全口义齿患者的义齿稳固,咀嚼功能良好。X线片显示随访期间种植体周围未见明显的骨吸收。结论种植体支持球帽附着体固位覆盖义齿临床效果可靠,可作为下颌无牙颌患者首选修复方式。     

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。     

种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖总义齿的临床应用

目的：探讨球帽附着体固位的下颌种植覆盖总义齿的临床效果。方法：随机选择18例下颌牙列缺失的患者,植入2颗种植体,利用球帽附着体固位制作的覆盖义齿,随访6个月—4年,从患者主观感受和X射线检查两方面观察修复效果。结果：覆盖义齿的美观、舒适、固位稳定性好,咀嚼效率高。结论：种植体支持球帽附着体固位的下颌覆盖义齿修复下颌牙列缺失患者临床效果好。     

球帽和Locator附着体种植覆盖义齿的临床疗效评价

目的:评价球帽附着体和Locator附着体应用于种植覆盖义齿的临床效果.方法:纳入无牙颌患者67例,共植入150颗Straumann或Bego种植体,完成球帽式或Locator式种植覆盖义齿修复.定期随访复查,包括修复后生物并发症和机械并发症情况和患者满意度调查.采用SPSS 17.0软件统计分析.结果:完成随访58例,球帽组35例,Locator组26例,球帽改Locator组7例.生物并发症比较显示,球帽组的牙龈增生发生率明显高于Locator组(P＜0.05);球帽组和Locator组的机械并发症发生率无显著差异(P＞0.05),但Locator组各类机械并发症的发生次数少于球帽组,球帽组平均修理频次为1.9次,Locator组为0.9次;Locator组患者对咀嚼和固位的满意度高于球帽组,不同性别的患者满意度无差异,满意度与患者的年龄和随访时间无相关性.结论:Locator式种植覆盖义齿相比球帽式种植覆盖义齿,临床效果具有一定优势.     

Locator式和球帽式下颌种植覆盖义齿在牙槽嵴应力分布的光弹性研究

目的 分析比较含2个种植体的下颌种植覆盖义齿分别使用球帽附着体和Locator附着体在正中,侧向及前伸(牙合)应力加载时对其种植体和余留牙槽嵴的应力分布差异.方法 应用三维光弹实验的方法,在Atwood 3级无牙颌模型双侧至尖牙区域内各植入1枚种植体后制作环氧树脂光弹模型,进行3种咬合状态下的1kg垂直加载.应力冻结后,比较两者的应力分布差异.结果 正中及前伸(牙合)位加载时,2种附着体均可达到颊舌侧应力分布相近,球帽式牙槽嵴顶应力分布略大;侧向(牙合)加载时,球帽式覆盖义齿较Locator式覆盖义齿工作侧与平衡侧应力差更小;3种(牙合)位加载时,球帽式覆盖义齿种植体周围的应力均小于Locator式覆盖义齿,其中侧向(牙合)尤为明显.结论 (1)在下颌牙槽嵴重度吸收时,使用球帽附着式覆盖义齿较Loctor式覆盖义齿可能对种植体周围的骨质及剩余牙槽嵴有更好的保护作用,建议作为首选(2)在使用Locator附着体时建议选用可减少侧向力的(牙合)型,如舌向集中(牙合)等.     

下颌覆盖义齿短微型种植体与标准长度微型种植体效果比较

目的:比较下颌覆盖义齿短微型种植体(mini dental implant,MDI)与标准长度MDI修复牙槽嵴重度萎缩无牙颌患者的效果,为临床应用提供参考.方法:选择进行下颌覆盖义齿短MDI和标准长度MDI修复的无牙颌患者60例,分为短MDI组(30例)和标准MDI组(30例),比较2组基线、术后1周和1年种植体周围组...     

球帽式和Locator式下颌种植覆盖总义齿的临床效果观察

目的：评价球帽式和Locator式下颌种植覆盖总义齿的临床应用效果。方法：共完成2颗种植体支持的球帽下颌覆盖总义齿9例,Locator下颌覆盖总义齿11例,上颌均制作可摘局部义齿。修复完成后于3、6、12、24个月进行随访,对各组种植体周围边缘骨吸收（MBL）进行评估,同时进行义齿满意度调查。结果：Locator组、球帽组在咀嚼功能、固位功能和舒适程度的满意度均高于治疗前,有显著性差异（P〈0.05）;Locator组与球帽组患者满意度、种植体周牙槽骨吸收量差异无统计学意义。结论：使用球帽、Locator附着体种植覆盖义齿在下颌无牙颌的应用中临床效果明显。     

Patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems: 5-year outcomes

BACKGROUND: Different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures could influence levels of patient satisfaction. Positive consensus of the majority of patients being satisfied does not preclude the possibility of dissatisfaction for some. PURPOSE: To evaluate patient satisfaction before and after 5 years of wearing mandibular two-implant overdentures using different attachment systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 106 edentulous participants enrolled in a clinical trial completed a preliminary self-report inventory of their original complete denture complaints. New complete maxillary dentures and mandibular two-implant overdentures were provided to each participant using one of six different attachment systems. Patient satisfaction was determined at pretreatment; at baseline with mandibular two-implant overdenture insertion; and then annually for 5 years, using visual analogue and Likert-type scales. ReSULTS: Patient satisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures at baseline was significantly improved in all domains compared to pretreatment (old dentures) and sustained up to the 5-year recall. The level of satisfaction with Straumann gold alloy matrices at 5 years was significantly lower than that with other attachment systems. Highly significant differences were found with some social and psychological aspects by the fifth year compared to baseline. Diagnostic and prognostic indicators from a pretreatment inventory identified 12 participants (13.5%) who were dissatisfied. These indicators revealed a maladaptive predisposition to mandibular two-implant overdentures. ConclusIONS: A mandibular two-implant overdenture (opposing a conventional complete maxillary denture) will improve patient satisfaction, regardless of the attachment system. Careful evaluation of pretreatment complaints with conventional dentures can possibly identify patient dissatisfaction with mandibular two-implant overdentures.     

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with ITI implants

This prospective study has been designed to compare the results of immediate and delayed loading of implant-retained mandibular overdentures after a 2-year follow-up. Twenty patients have been randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 patients (test group) received four ITI implants in the intraforaminal area of the mandible. Octa abutments were immediately screwed on implants; 2 days after surgery, the implants were rigidly connected with a U-shaped Dolder gold bar and loaded with an overdenture. Group 2 patients (control group) received, in the same area, the same type and number of implants, which were left to heal according to the standard protocol. At 3-4 months, Octa abutments were screwed on the implants and the same prosthetic procedure of the test group was applied. The minimum follow-up period lasted 2 years, with recall appointments at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 months, 1 year and every following year postoperatively, evaluating: MPI, MBI, PD, Periotest and radiographic peri-implant bone resorption. Success criteria according to Albrektsson et al. were used. Only one implant out of the 40 of group 2 failed, whereas none failed in group 1. No statistical difference of the clinical parameters evaluated was noticed in the two groups. Therefore, immediate loading of implants, if connected with a U-shaped bar, can provide the same results of the 'traditional' technique as far as osseointegration and short-term survival rates of implants are concerned. Moreover, this method significantly shortens the treatment period, thus increasing patient satisfaction.