两种附着体种植覆盖义齿的临床效果比较

目的 评价球帽附着体和Locator 附着体应用于无牙颌患者种植覆盖义齿的临床效果.方法 选择无牙颌行种植覆盖义齿修复患者67例,共植入150颗种植体,附着体类型为球帽或Locator.对患者定期复查,检查种植体的牙周袋探诊深度(PPD),菌斑指数(PLI),牙龈指数(GI)和龈沟出血指数(BI),测量边缘骨吸收值(MBL).患者分为球帽组、球帽改Locator组和Locator组,对PPD值、MBL值和PLI、GI、BI分别进行3组间比较.使用Digimizer图像分析软件进行影像学测量,采用SPSS17.0软件进行统计分析.结果 150颗种植体修复前成功率为95.88%,累计存留率为92.97%.PPD值平均为(2.16 ± 1.02)mm,球帽组与改做组间无显著差异,Locator组的PPD值明显低于另2组.PLI、GI和BI的组间差异均无统计学意义.MBL值平均为(0.92 ± 0.61)mm,改做组的MBL值明显高于另2组,而Locator组的MBL值最低.结论 Locator式种植覆盖义齿比球帽式种植覆盖义齿的临床效果具有一定优势.

Two attachment types of implant-supported overdentures:a clinical comparative study

Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of ball attachments and Locator attachments in patients with implant-supported overdentures. Methods A total of 67 edentulous patients with implant-supported overdentures were included in the study. The ball attachments or locator attachments were used in the overdentures. The patients were reviewed and examined for implant probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PLI), gingival index (GI) and gingival sulcus bleeding index (BI), and marginal bone loss (MBL). The patients were divided into ball group, ball-turn-to-Locator group and Locator group. The PPD value,MBL value and PLI,GI and BI were compared among the three groups. Results The success rate before the restoration was 95.88% and the cumulative survival rate was 92.97%. The average value of PPD was (2.16 ± 1.02)mm, and there was no significant difference between the ball group and the modified group. The PPD value of the Locator group was significantly lower than that of the other two groups. There were no significant differences in PLI,GI and BI among the three groups. The average value of MBL was(0.92 ± 0.61)mm,and the MBL value of the modified group was significantly higher than that of the other two groups,while the MBL value of the Locator group was relatively low. Conclusion The clinical effect of Locator implant-supported overdentures is superior to that of the ball type.