Branemark种植体支持Nobelpoharma杆状覆盖义齿的临床应用

目的：总结和评价Branemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状种植覆盖义齿的应用经验和效果。方法：将种植体与Nobelpharma杆卡式附着体结合，为13例患者制作种植覆盖义齿，随访观察1－4年，定期拍X线片了解种植体骨结合情况。结果：种植体稳固，X线片未见种植体周有异常骨吸收；患者对义齿的固位力十分满意，咀嚼效率和舒适性较原有的传统活动义齿有显著的改善，提高患者的生活自信心和生命质量。结论：Branemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状覆盖义齿稳固、美观、易于维护口腔卫生、手术简单和损伤较小，对牙槽嵴严重萎缩者尤为适宜；采用两个固位卡即可使种植覆盖义齿获得足够的固位力。     

Br(°)anemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状覆盖义齿的临床应用

目的:总结和评价Br(°)anemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状种植覆盖义齿的应用经验和效果.方法:将种植体与Nobelpharma杆卡式附着体结合,为13例患者制作种植覆盖义齿,随访观察1～4年,定期拍X线片了解种植体骨结合情况.结果:种植体稳固,X线片未见种植体周有异常骨吸收;患者对义齿的固位力十分满意,咀嚼效率和舒适性较原有的传统活动义齿有显著的改善,提高患者的生活自信心和生命质量.结论:Br(°)anemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状覆盖义齿稳固、美观、易于维护口腔卫生、手术简单和损伤较小,对牙槽嵴严重萎缩者尤为适宜;采用两个固位卡即可使种植覆盖义齿获得足够的固位力.     

Brnemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状覆盖义齿的临床应用

目的 :总结和评价Branemark种植体支持Nobelpharma杆状种植覆盖义齿的应用经验和效果。方法 :将种植体与Nobelpharma杆卡式附着体结合 ,为13例患者制作种植覆盖义齿 ,随访观察1～4年 ,定期拍X线片了解种植体骨结合情况。结果 :种植体稳固 ,X线片未见种植体周有异常骨吸收 ;患者对义齿的固位力十分满意 ,咀嚼效率和舒适性较原有的传统活动义齿有显著的改善 ,提高患者的生活自信心和生命质量。结论 :Branemark种植体支持Nobelphar ma杆状覆盖义齿稳固、美观、易于维护口腔卫生、手术简单和损伤较小 ,对牙槽嵴严重萎缩者尤为适宜 ;采用两个固位卡即可使种植覆盖义齿获得足够的固位力。     

种植体支持的无牙颌套筒冠覆盖义齿研究进展

近20年来,种植覆盖义齿被广泛应用于临床。而种植体支持的无牙颌套筒冠覆盖义齿由于灵活的设计、理想的固位和咀嚼功能为无牙颌患者提供了更好的选择。合理设计套筒冠内冠角度,选用合适的套筒冠内外冠材料可使整个覆盖义齿获得最佳固位力,同时对种植体套筒冠固位位置的优化设计和力学分析能提供更理想的应力分布,保证义齿的远期成功。本文对种植体支持的无牙颌套筒冠覆盖义齿的研究进展作一综述。     

下颌种植覆盖义齿的临床应用

种植覆盖义齿由种植体，附着系统和总义齿三部分组成。临床上应用全部由种植体支持的修复体时，需要考虑美观、发音、功能、自洁能力及治疗费用等诸多因素。虽然，其中的许多问题已经被成功地解决了，但特殊治疗的费用限制着许多患者的使用。颌骨严重吸收的无牙颌患者可以应用种植覆盖义齿修复。本文综述下颌种植覆盖义齿的分类、特点及其应用效果。     

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...     

种植体植入部位对全下颌种植覆盖义齿应力分布的影响

目的:对不同种植体植入部位的全下颌种植覆盖义齿及支持组织进行力学分析,为优化种植覆盖义齿设计提供依据。方法:应用三维有限元法,对分别采用颏孔前和尖牙、磨牙区植入种植体的全下颌种植覆盖义齿进行应力分析,对比义齿本身和支持组织应力分布的差异。结果:①颏孔前植入的覆盖义齿对斜向载荷的抵抗性差,种植体-骨界面应力峰值为垂直载荷的2.4～9.2倍;垂直及斜向载荷,种植体和基托均有较高的应力集中。②尖牙、磨牙区植入的覆盖义齿,垂直及斜向载荷时均表现了较佳的力学特性,支持组织应力峰值位于骨维持的生理范围内。结论:磨牙区种植体的植入可增强覆盖义齿对侧向力的抵抗能力,降低种植体-骨界面应力峰值,减少机械性并发症的发生。而单纯颏孔前植入设计时,应考虑采用缓冲设计,提高覆盖义齿的远期成功率。     

自然牙根支持及种植牙支持式下颌全口覆盖义齿的三维有限 …

研究自然牙根支持和种西基牙支持覆盖义齿在咀嚼过程中其周围骨皮质应力的差异，为改善种植覆盖义齿的修复效果提供依据。方法 借助于ＣＴ扫描与计算机辅助设计手段，用三维有限元方法比较自然牙根支持式与种植牙支持式覆盖义齿在采用不同固位装置，没咬合力状态下，支持组织应力分布的差异。     

非埋藏式种植体支持球型固位覆盖义齿在下颌无牙(牙合)修复中的应用

目的 评价非埋藏式种植体支持球型固位下颌覆盖义齿的临床效果。方法 39例下颌牙He病人，种植98颗TTI种植体，表面喷涂钛离子（TPS）的种植体于种植后3个月行上部结构修复，表面喷涂酸蚀－喷沙（SLA）的种植体于种植后6周行上部结构修复，上部结构采用球型固位设计。种植后及义齿修复后的观察期为1－11a。结果 种植成功率为99％，义齿修复后行使功能的成功率为100％。结果 非埋藏式种植体（ITI）支持球型固位覆盖义齿在下颌无牙He修复中有很高的成功率。     

Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare ball and magnet attachments within implant-supported mandibular overdentures (ISMOD) using patient centred outcome measures. Our a priori hypothesis was that there is no difference in patient satisfaction between the two attachment types.
Material and methods: In this within-subject crossover randomised clinical trial, edentulous patients were recruited to the study and completed a denture satisfaction questionnaire before having two implants placed in the intraforaminal region of the mandible. They were randomly assigned to receive an ISMOD retained by either ball or magnetic attachment. After 3 months satisfaction questionnaires were repeated before attachments were changed to the alternative design. After a further 3 months patients completed final questionnaires. Patients were asked to choose their preferred prostheses and record the most influential factors in their final choice. The outcome variables of patient satisfaction were compared between baseline and the two attachment types using non-parametric two-related sample tests (Wilcoxon's signed rank).
Results and discussion: Sixteen patients completed the study. Patient satisfaction improved significantly between baseline and the new prosthesis with each attachment type for all domains of satisfaction ( P <0.05). Ball attachments provided greater satisfaction in the domains of general satisfaction, stability and ability to chew ( P <0.05). Patients' general satisfaction with ball attachment retained overdentures was greater than that for magnetic attachments; however, both designs provide significantly greater satisfaction than conventional dentures. In this study, the majority preferred to retain the ball attachment although one-third of patients actively chose the magnetic attachment.     

Rotational movements of mandibular two-implant overdentures

Objectives: Clinicians have reported that their patients complain that their mandibular two-implant overdentures (IOD) rotate. Therefore, we studied the frequency and severity of rotation of IODs with two-ball attachments, how rotation may influence perceived satisfaction ratings of chewing ability, and the factors that are involved in the rotation of IODs.
Material and methods: Seventy-nine participants were recruited and asked to rate their general satisfaction of their IODs, as well as their ability to chew foods, the existence of any mandibular denture rotation, and to what degree denture rotation bothered them. Data on participant sociodemographic, anatomical, and prosthesis characteristics were also collected. Student's t- test and logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze the differences between participants who did (R group) and did not report (NR group) denture rotation.
Results: Thirty-seven of 79 participants were aware of rotational movement in their IODs. These patients were significantly less satisfied with their chewing ability than those who felt no rotation (69.1 mm R group vs. 82.9 mm), and discomfort caused by the rotation bothered them moderately (39/100 mm). The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the arrangement of the anterior teeth and the length of the denture are significantly associated with awareness of denture rotation. Thirty-eight percent in the R group and 31% in the NR group had non-scheduled visits.
Conclusions: Rotational movement with a mandibular two-IOD has a negative effect on perceived chewing ability and is associated with anterior tooth arrangement and denture length.     

Effects of different numbers of mini-dental implants on alveolar ridge strain distribution under mandibular implant-retained overdentures

Purpose

To investigate the strains around mini-dental implants (MDIs) and retromolar edentulous areas when using different numbers of MDIs in order to retain mandibular overdentures.

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark,IMZ or ITI implants. A prospective comparative preliminary study: One-year results.

The aim of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the condition of the peri-implant tissues of three different implant systems supporting a mandibular overdenture. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomization, 30 patients were treated with 2 Brånemark implants, 30 patients with 2 IMZ implants and 30 patients with 2 ITI implants. The implants were inserted in the canine region of the mandible. After 3 months overdentures were fabricated supported by a round bar and clip attachment. A standardized clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed 0,6 and 12 months after insertion of the denture. The intra-oral radiographs were made, using the long-cone technique with an aiming device. Two implants were lost (1 Brånemark, 1 IMZ) during the healing period. None of the patients showed any sensory change in lip or chin region. The pocket depth in the Brinemark group decreased significantly whereas the mucosa recession increased significantly in both the Brånemark as well as in the IMZ group. After 12 months, there was significantly less bone loss in the ITI group. From our study it was concluded that 2 (Brånemark, IMZ or ITI) implants placed in the interforaminal region connected with a bar supply a proper base for the support of a mandibular overdenture in the (Cawood V–VI) edentulous patient. The ITI implant appears to be the implant of choice for mandibular overdenture therapy. because only one operation is required for a comparable result.     

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.     

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants. A prospective comparative preliminary study: One‐year results.

The aim of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the condition of the peri‐implant tissues of three different implant systems supporting a mandibular overdenture. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomization, 30 patients were treated with 2 Brånemark implants, 30 patients with 2 IMZ implants and 30 patients with 2 ITI implants. The implants were inserted in the canine region of the mandible. After 3 months overdentures were fabricated supported by a round bar and clip attachment. A standardized clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed 0,6 and 12 months after insertion of the denture. The intra‐oral radiographs were made, using the long‐cone technique with an aiming device. Two implants were lost (1 Brånemark, 1 IMZ) during the healing period. None of the patients showed any sensory change in lip or chin region. The pocket depth in the Brinemark group decreased significantly whereas the mucosa recession increased significantly in both the Brånemark as well as in the IMZ group. After 12 months, there was significantly less bone loss in the ITI group. From our study it was concluded that 2 (Brånemark, IMZ or ITI) implants placed in the interforaminal region connected with a bar supply a proper base for the support of a mandibular overdenture in the (Cawood V–VI) edentulous patient. The ITI implant appears to be the implant of choice for mandibular overdenture therapy. because only one operation is required for a comparable result.     

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...