磁性附着体种植覆盖义齿修复下颌牙槽骨重度吸收无牙颌患者的临床观察

目的：探讨磁性附着体种植覆盖义齿修复下颌牙槽骨重度吸收无牙颌患者的临床效果。方法：对下颌牙槽骨重度吸收、牙槽嵴低平的患者,在下颌尖牙位置植入2枚种植体,3—6个月后完成磁性附着体覆盖义齿修复。每隔6个月复诊一次,观察覆盖义齿使用情况,并结合口内检查和X线检查评价使用效果。结果：修复完成后2—3年,种植体骨结合良好,未见明显骨吸收;义齿固位良好,患者对美观及功能效果满意。结论：磁性附着体种植覆盖义齿修复下颌牙槽骨重度吸收无牙颌患者,能明显示改善义齿固位和咀嚼效果。     

下颌无牙颌种植体支持SynCone套筒冠固位覆盖义齿的临床观察

目的：探讨应用Ankylos种植系统SynCone基台行下颌无牙颌种植体支持覆盖义齿修复的临床效果。方法：17例下颌无牙颌患者,在下颌植入4枚Ankylos种植体,2~3个月后行种植体水平转移并采用SynCone基台制作种植覆盖义齿,戴牙后3、6、12、18个月复查,进行临床和放射学检查。结果：17例患者中无种植体脱落现象,种植体周软组织健康,x线检查来见明显骨吸收,义齿固位力好、稳定,患者对修复效果满意。结论：在下颌植入4枚种植体,使用SynCone基台行种植体支持覆盖义齿修复效果明显,操作简单,易于维护,患者满意度高,值得推广。     

locator种植覆盖义齿在下颌无牙颌修复中的应用

目的：探讨locator附着体种植覆盖义齿在下颌无牙颌修复中的临床应用效果。方法：对12例下颌无牙颌患者,每名患者下颌植入2枚种植体,共24枚,3~4个月后完成locator附着体覆盖义齿修复。术后2年期间进行随访。结果：24枚种植体均无松动,骨无明显吸收,患者对义齿咀嚼及固位满意。结论：locator附着体固位的种植覆盖义齿是下颌无牙颌患者理想的修复方式。     

磁性固位种植覆盖义齿在无牙颌修复中的应用

目的:为解决牙槽骨严重吸收无牙颌患者的修复难题,探讨磁性附着体种植覆盖义齿在临床上的应用效果。方法:本文对12例牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者均采用2枚CDIC种植体,4-6个月后进行磁性附着体覆盖义齿修复,每半年复诊,观察义齿使用情况,并结合临床检查和X线检查评价效果。结果:12例患者24枚种植体均达到骨结合,12件覆盖义齿固位良好,患者满意度100%,义齿稳定性较好,患者满意度90%。结论:磁性固位种植体覆盖义齿用于牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者修复治疗,临床效果好,值得推广。     

无牙颌患者种植义齿修复

目的:无牙颌患者采用种植义齿修复可有效的增强义齿的固位,提高义齿的修复效果。方法:从1999年至2007年,对22例无牙颌患者,年龄45-82岁,行种植义齿修复,其中,有2例采用种植固定义齿修复,7例采用杆-卡式种植覆盖义齿修复,11例采用球-帽式种植覆盖义齿修复,1例采用双套筒冠种植覆盖义齿修复,1例采用磁性固位种植覆盖义齿修复。患者种植体植入2-9颗,共植入种植体97枚,种植体采用Frialit-2,Fri-alit-xive系统,观察时间108个月,采用临床检查、X线观察和患者主观评价等来评价种植体与骨组织结合状态,评价其义齿的修复效果。结果:观察期内发现1枚种植体脱(球-帽式固位种植体),1枚种植体未作修复,仍埋入在粘膜下的颌骨内。种植义齿修复后固位稳定作用良好,患者咀嚼有力,对义齿修复效果满意。结论:无牙颌患者种植义齿修复效果良好,患者满意度高。     

球帽固位下颌双种植体覆盖义齿修复效果的前瞻性研究

目的 评价球帽固位的下颌双种植体覆盖义齿的临床修复效果及其修复并发症。 方法 对下颌牙槽骨重度萎缩的10例无牙颌患者,在前牙区与中线等距平行植入2枚种植体,3个月后采用球帽附着体固位方式制作下颌种植覆盖义齿。在覆盖义齿戴入后1周、1年、2年、3年进行随访,评价种植体边缘骨吸收情况、种植体周围软组织健康状况、患者满意度及义齿并发症情况。 结果 10例两球帽固位的下颌种植覆盖义齿经过3年观察,种植体存留率100%,边缘骨吸收<1 mm,种植体周围软组织健康,患者满意度显著提高且维持稳定,义齿无重衬或折断现象,义齿并发症主要是球帽附着体O型圈的置换或固位金属簧的固位力再激活,修理频次0.67次/(年·人)。 结论 在种植体植入位置、方向合适的情况下,球帽附着体固位的下颌双植体覆盖义齿,可获得长期稳定的临床修复效果。     

下颌无牙颌种植后早期负重的临床研究

目的:探讨下颌无牙颌在种植后早期进行杆卡固位覆盖义齿修复的技术要点和临床效果。方法:8例下颌无牙颌患者,在双侧颏孔之间植入4颗种植体,术后即刻印模转移,1周内完成种植体支持的杆卡固位覆盖义齿修复,均于负重后1、3、6、12个月复诊,之后每12个月复诊一次,检查种植体的稳固性、种植体周龈组织状况,并拍摄X线片观察种植体骨吸收和骨结合状况。结果:8例共32颗种植体早期负重,追踪观察12~48个月,平均观察26个月,种植体无松动或脱落;种植体周龈组织健康;种植体周未见X线透射影;种植体周边缘骨吸收0.5~1.2mm,平均0.7mm;患者对修复效果满意。结论:下颌无牙颌患者,在双侧颏孔间植入4颗种植体,如种植体可获得足够的初始稳定性,即刻采用种植体支持的杆卡覆盖义齿修复是可行的,短期临床效果满意。     

种植套筒冠覆盖义齿在无牙颌修复中的应用

目的探讨以种植套筒冠覆盖义齿修复无牙颌的临床效果。方法对北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院口腔种植中心就诊的21例无牙颌患者,采用种植套筒冠覆盖义齿修复。共28件修复体,其中上颌全颌覆盖义齿13件,下颌全颌覆盖义齿15件。共植人种植体139枚,其中Camlog 74枚,IMZ 28枚,Frialit-2 37枚。种植体修复基台切削后直接作为套筒冠内冠,套筒冠外冠分别采用金沉积技术和失蜡铸造技术加工。修复后平均追踪26．5个月(12-39个月)。以临床检查和影像学检查评价修复效果。结果至最后一次复查,21例患者临床检查未见修复体松动、折断、损坏,修复体固位好、稳定,种植体周围软组织健康。19例患者曲面断层X线片显示种植体周围骨组织稳定,无吸收。仅2例在修复3年后发现少量骨吸收,约1 mm。修复后至最后一次复查未见种植体脱落。结论种植套筒冠覆盖义齿稳定,种植体周围骨组织稳定,可用于无牙颌修复。     

27例磁性附着体固位种植覆盖义齿临床体会

目的：评价磁性附着体固位种植覆盖义齿在牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者中运用的临床效果。方法：27例牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者,植入2—4枚牙种植体,3-6个月后进行种植体支持式磁性附着体固位覆盖义齿修复,定期复查,随访8—79个月。采用临床检查、x线检查和患者主观感受问卷来评价此类义齿的修复效果。结果：27例患者61枚种植体,1枚在修复前由于种植体周围炎松动被拔除,3枚在覆盖义齿修复后发生种植体周围炎松动被拔除,其余种植体均稳固无松动;27件种植覆盖义齿的固位、稳定、咀嚼功能均良好,患者满意度高。结论：运用磁性附着体固位种植覆盖义齿修复牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌能很好的恢复咀嚼功能,且制作方法简单,值得临床大力推广。     

种植磁性覆盖义齿的临床效果观察

目的探讨种植磁附着体全口义齿对下颌牙槽嵴重度吸收的无牙颌患者的修复效果。方法采用C D I C牙种植体及配套磁性附着体,为15例下颌牙槽嵴重度吸收的无牙颌患者在下颌两侧第一前磨牙区各植入1枚种植体,4～6个月后制作下颌全口义齿并在组织面粘固磁体。进行咀嚼效率和患者满意度测定。结果种植磁附着体全口义齿在粘固磁体后及粘固后2周的固位力和咀嚼效率均较放置磁体前明显提高,且患者满意度提高。结论磁性固位种植体覆盖义齿用于牙槽骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者修复治疗的临床效果好。     

A survey of the use of mandibular implant overdentures in 10 countries

Purpose

This preliminary international survey compared provision of implant-retained overdentures to fixed implant-supported prostheses for edentulous mandibles.

Materials and Methods

Questionnaires based on a 2001 Swedish study were sent to prosthodontists and specialist clinics in nine additional countries.

Results

Response rate varied from 53% to 100% in 10 national surveys and should allow careful comparison of results. The relationship between implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in treatment of edentulous mandibles varied much; in Sweden, the proportion of overdentures was 12%, whereas it was 93% in the Netherlands. In all countries, the most common reason for choice of the overdenture was reduced cost. In all but two countries, the majority of respondents thought that patients with implant overdentures were equally or more satisfied with overdentures as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses.

Conclusion

There were great differences among the 10 countries in choice of implant treatment of the edentulous mandible. The relative proportion of mandibular overdentures to fixed prostheses was low in Sweden and Greece and varied from one to two thirds in the other countries, except the Netherlands.     

A survey of the use of mandibular implant overdentures in 10 countries

PURPOSE: This preliminary international survey compared provision of implant-retained overdentures to fixed implant-supported prostheses for edentulous mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires based on a 2001 Swedish study were sent to prosthodontists and specialist clinics in nine additional countries. RESULTS: Response rate varied from 53% to 100% in 10 national surveys and should allow careful comparison of results. The relationship between implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in treatment of edentulous mandibles varied much; in Sweden, the proportion of overdentures was 12%, whereas it was 93% in The Netherlands. In all countries, the most common reason for choice of the overdenture was reduced cost. In all but two countries, the majority of respondents thought that patients with implant overdentures were equally or more satisfied with overdentures as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses. CONCLUSION: There were great differences among the 10 countries in choice of implant treatment of the edentulous mandible. The relative proportion of mandibular overdentures to fixed prostheses was low in Sweden and Greece and varied from one to two thirds in the other countries, except The Netherlands.     

Restoration with implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and patient satisfaction with the implant-supported superstructure

PURPOSE: The use of endosseous implants in the prosthetic restoration of edentulous patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) may provide improved outcomes when compared with traditional prosthetic methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of placing endosseous implants in patients with RDEB and to compare the treatment outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported restorations in the edentulous maxilla or mandible with the main emphasis on patient response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with RDEB were treated with implants. All patients were completely edentulous in either the maxilla or mandible and had marked oral involvement, with alterations in the soft and hard tissues in all cases. Three patients were treated with fixed, screw-retained implant-supported prostheses, and 3 were treated with removable implant-supported prostheses. Six months after prosthetic restoration, patients were given a questionnaire to assess their psychologic well-being and satisfaction with the implant-supported restoration marked on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 38 dental implants (21 maxillary, 17 mandibular) were placed in 6 patients. The implant success rate was 97.9%. The average follow-up from implant placement was 5.5 years (range, 1 to 9). The fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses were associated with improvements in comfort and retention, function, esthetics and appearance, taste, speech, and self-esteem. The level of satisfaction was slightly higher in patients with a fixed prosthesis. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that endosseous implants can be successfully placed and provide support for prostheses in patients with RDEB. Patients with fixed prostheses and overdentures were satisfied with their implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla and mandible.     

Use of mandibular implant overdentures: treatment policy in prosthodontic specialist clinics in Sweden

The aim was to examine the use of mandibular implant overdentures in Swedish prosthodontic specialist clinics. Questionnaires related to treatment with mandibular implant overdentures during 2001 were sent to the heads of the 30 prosthodontic specialist clinics of the Public Dental Health Service in Sweden. Completed questionnaires were received from 28 (93%). The number of treatments with mandibular implant overdentures varied much among the clinics (0 to 22). Seven clinics had not performed any such treatment, and the median number was 2. The number of fixed implant-supported prostheses was much higher (median value 17, range 4 to 100). The correlation between the number of implant overdentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles was weak (r = 0.33; P = 0.10). The most common anchorage system was ball attachments on two unsplinted implants. The most common reason for the choice of the overdenture treatment was the reduced cost, whereas the patient's main wish to improve denture retention came next. The question whether the demand for implant overdentures had increased during the last few years, was answered with "no" by 19, with "yes" by 5 and with "don't know" by 4 clinics. All but one responded that their attitude to implant overdentures had not changed after the introduction of free pricing in Swedish dentistry. It can be concluded that compared to the rapidly increasing international use of mandibular implant overdentures, this treatment of edentulous patients is rare in Sweden, where fixed implant-supported prostheses still are predominant.     

无牙颌患者种植修复的体会

目的：探讨无牙颌种植覆盖义齿、种植固定义齿修复的临床疗效。方法：对34例单颌、全颌无牙颌患进行了种植修复。单颌无牙颌26例中10例进行了杆卡修复,5例球帽修复,2例磁性固位体修复,9例种植固定修复。全颌无牙颌8例中3例种植固定修复,3例杆卡修复,2例球帽修复。结果：经6～60个月的临床观察,256枚种植体中,除3枚种植体形成纤维愈合(1．17％)外,其余253枚种植体均形成了良好的骨性结合(98．83％),种植义齿功能较好,收到了满意的临床效果。结论：对于无牙颁的患,通过精心的设计、精巧的外科手术及合理的种植修复类型的选择,完成的种植修复体能有效地恢复咀嚼功能,并能使种植体长期稳固于口腔内行使功能。     

Within-subject comparisons of maxillary fixed and removable implant prostheses: Patient satisfaction and choice of prosthesis

Dental implants provide patients with restorative options for the edentulous maxilla. Both fixed and removable prostheses can be attached to the edentulous maxilla, but the efficacy of different designs has not been determined. In this two-session within-subject crossover trial we compared maxillary implant retained fixed prostheses with removable implant overdentures opposed by mandibular implant-supported overdentures. Sixteen patients, who had previously received mandibular implants, entered the study and received four to six maxillary implants. After dropouts as a consequence of a lack of osseointegration and general health problems, 13 remained. Of these, five received the removable prosthesis first and eight the fixed prosthesis. After 2 months, the prostheses were exchanged and the second was also worn for 2 months. Psychometric measurements of general satisfaction with the prostheses as well as comfort, ability to speak, stability, esthetics, ease of cleaning and occlusion were obtained once each prosthesis had been worn for 2 months. Chewing ability was assessed for seven types of food. Removable long-bar overdentures received significantly higher ratings of general satisfaction than fixed prostheses (P = 0.003). Patients also rated their ability to speak and ease of cleaning significantly better with the removable overdentures. Nine patients chose to keep the removable prosthesis and four preferred to keep the fixed prosthesis. The results suggest that maxillary removable overdentures on multiple implants may provide patients with better function than fixed prostheses.     

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的下颌覆盖全口义齿临床应用效果.方法:随机选择15例下颌无牙颌患者,每例植入2枚种植体,共植入30枚,随访观察1-12个月,从患者满意度、临床检查及种植体X线片观察修复效果.结果:种植体支持覆盖全口义齿修复下颌无牙颌,义齿固位和咀嚼功能满意率分别为100％和93.3％,义齿稳固,咀嚼功...     

Neuromuscular coordination of masticatory muscles in subjects with two types of implant-supported prostheses

OBJECTIVES: To compare the electromyographic (EMG) characteristics of masticatory muscles in patients with fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen subjects aged 45-79 years were examined. Fourteen were edentulous and had been successfully rehabilitated with (a) maxillary and mandibular implant-supported fixed prostheses (seven patients); (b) mandibular implant overdentures and maxillary complete dentures (seven patients). Five control subjects had natural dentition or single/partial (no more than two teeth) tooth or implant fixed dentures. Surface EMG of the masseter and temporal muscles was performed during unilateral gum chewing and during maximum teeth clenching. To reduce biological and instrumental noise, all values were standardized as percentage of a maximum clenching on cotton rolls. RESULTS: During clenching, temporal muscle symmetry was larger in control subjects and fixed implant-supported prosthesis patients than in overdenture patients (analysis of variance, P=0.005). No differences were found in masseter muscle symmetry or in muscular torque. Muscle activities (integrated areas of the EMG potentials over time) were significantly larger in control subjects than in implant-supported prosthesis patients (P=0.014). In both patient groups, a poor neuromuscular coordination during chewing, with altered muscular patterns, and a smaller left-right symmetry than in control subjects were found (P=0.05). No differences in masticatory frequency were found. CONCLUSION: Surface EMG analysis of clenching and chewing showed that fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant overdentures were functionally equivalent. Neuromuscular coordination during chewing was inferior to that found in subjects with natural dentition.     

A survey of implant-retained superstructure types in the edentulous mandible in The Netherlands

Treatment of mandibular edentulousness with endosseous permucosal implants has evolved to a common treatment option during the last decades. In The Netherlands, the relative cheap prosthetic treatment of implant-supported overdentures is considered a qualitatively adequate treatment. The aim of the study described in this article was to survey the treatment of edentulous mandibles by fixed implant-supported prostheses and implant-supported overdentures, and to register the different mesostructures used. All clinics of special dental care and all larger clinics for implant dentistry in The Netherlands received a questionnaire. The data provided showed that more than 90% of patients treated with implants because of mandibular edentulousness, were provided with an overdenture. In 85% of cases a bar-clip mesostructure was used. Cost control was the most important reason to choose an overdenture above a fixed implant-supported prosthesis.