后牙区粘接固位和螺丝固位种植义齿周围组织健康状况的临床评价

目的 探究粘接固位与螺丝固位修复方式对后牙区单个种植义齿周围软硬组织健康状况的影响，以及医生和患者对不同固位方式的满意度评价。方法 选择后牙区单颗种植义齿共86颗，分为粘接固位组（n₁=50）和螺丝固位组（n₂=36），种植体上部结构的平均负载时间为（54.95±28.71）个月，对两组的PD、mPLI、mSBI、种植体周围疾病发生情况等进行测量，并开展医生及患者满意度评价。结果 粘接固位组发生种植体周围炎和种植体周围黏膜炎者分别占8.0%和28.0%，螺丝固位组为2.8%和30.5%，两者差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；两组的PD、mPLI和mSBI差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；满意度方面，患者对粘接固位组的美观度评价较高，医生对螺丝固位组的易清洁度评价较高，两者差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 粘接固位与螺丝固位对后牙区种植体周围软硬组织健康状况的影响不显著。满意度调查提示，患者更倾向于选择粘接固位，而医生更倾向于选择螺丝固位。

Clinical evaluation of the health condition of soft and hard tissues around cement-retained and screw-retained implantsupported posterior restorations

Objective To evaluate the health condition of soft and hard tissues around cement-retained and screw-retained implant-supported posterior restorations, as well as the satisfaction of doctors and patients on two different retention methods. Methods 86 posterior single implant-supported restorations were included in this comparative study, with 50 in cement-retained group and 36 in screw-retained group. The average load time of the implant superstructure was (54.95±28.71) months. The PD, mPLI, mSBI, prevalence of peri-implant diseases and satisfaction of doctors and patients on two retention methods were measured respectively. Results The prevalence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis in cement-retained group was 8.0% and 28.0% respectively, whereas for the screw-retained group, the percentage was 2.8% and 30.5%. No significant difference was observed in the PD, mPLI, mSB. between the two retention methods (P>0.05). As for satisfaction, patients have higher evaluation of cemented retention on esthetics, while doctors have higher evaluation of screw retention on easiness to clean (P<0.05). Conclusion There is no statistically significant difference between cement-retained and screw-retained posterior restorations with regard to the health condition of soft and hard tissues. The satisfaction survey indicated that patients might prefer cemented retention while doctors might prefer screw retention.