美学区种植同期引导骨再生采用不同愈合方式的评价研究

Effect of Different Healing Ways on Tissue around the Implants in Aesthetic Zone with Guided Bone Regeneration

目的:美学区种植同期行引导骨再生(GuidedBoneRegeneration,GBR)技术,探讨埋入式与穿龈式两种愈合方式对种植体周围组织的影响。方法:选择2011年6月-2015年6月上颌前牙种植体周骨缺损行GBR技术的种植修复患者42例,其中埋入式25例,穿龈式17例,测量两组种植义齿邻牙探诊出血(BOP)、牙周探诊深度(PPD)、附着水平(CAL)与种植体边缘骨吸收量。结果:种植术后24个月,埋入式与穿龈式BOP阳性百分比为5.0%与8.8%,PPD为(2.6±0.6)mm与(2.4±0.6)mm,CAL为(2.6±0.9)mm与(2.6±1.0)mm,种植体边缘骨吸收量(0.51±0.65)mm与(0.58±0.67)mm,均无统计学差异。结论:在熟练掌握骨增量技术的前提下,埋入式与穿龈式两种愈合方式对种植体周围组织的影响无差异,几乎可以获得相同的临床效果。

Objective To explore the influence of submerged and transmucosal healing on tissue around the implants in aesthetic zone with guided bone regeneration(GBR).Methods From June2011to June2015,42patients with bone defect in maxilla anterior region were followed up,25patients received implans with submerged surgical technique and17with transmucosal surgical technique.The clinical parameters including bleeding on probing(BOP),pocket probing depth(PPD),clinical attachment level(CAL)at teech adjacent to implant and peri-implant marginal bone resorption after restoration were recorded.Results There was no statistically difference between the submerged and transmucosal group for BOP(BOP+sites:5.0%vs.8.8%),PPD[(2.6±0.6)mm vs.(2.4±0.6)mm]and CAL[(2.6±0.9)mm vs(2.6±1.0)mm]at the 24 months follow-up visit.The differences of peri-implant marginal bone resorption were not significant,which was(0.51±0.65)mm in the submerged and(0.58±0.67)mm in the transmucosal.Conclusion The submerged and transmucosal healing can achieve similar outcome,when the implant is placed in aesthetic zone with GBR bone augmentation operation.