两种不同口腔种植系统5年临床效果分析

Five-year clinical effect analysis of two different dental implant systems

目的探讨采用Nobel种植系统和士卓曼种植系统(软组织水平种植体)修复下颌单颗后牙缺失病例5年后的临床效果。方法选取2013年1月至2013年12月在郑州大学第一附属医院口腔种植修复科收治的下颌单颗后牙缺失患者60例作为研究对象,以种植系统分组,A组(Nobel种植系统)30例,B组[士卓曼系统(ITI软组织水平种植体)]30例,均采用非埋入方式。随访时间平均5年,通过对两组患者种植修复后5年进行数字全景片检查,计算牙槽骨丧失量,统计基台松动例数,对两种系统的种植效果进行评价。结果A组显效17例,有效11例,其治疗的总有效率为93.33%;B组显效13例,有效16例,其治疗的总有效率为96.43%,两组总有效率比较差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。种植修复后5年种植体边缘的骨吸收量A组平均值为(1.47±0.17)mm;B组平均值为(0.57±0.13)mm,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A组种植后5年基台松动2例,发生率为6.67%;B组1例,发生率为3.33%,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种不同种植系统的种植体对骨组织的吸收情况存在一定差异,但两种牙体种植系统均能取得好的临床疗效,临床上应根据患者的实际情况选择合适的种植系统,以保证患者得到最佳的治疗效果。

Objective To investigate the clinical effect of Nobel implant system and Straumann implant system (soft tissue level implants) in repairing single mandibular posterior teeth after 5 years. Methods From January 2013 to December 2013, 60 patients with single mandibular posterior tooth loss in Department of Implant Repair of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were selected as the study subjects, including 30 patients in group A (Nobel implant system) and 30 patients in group B (ITI Soft Tissue Level of Stroman System). All patients were followed up by non-embedding method for an average of 5 years. The alveolar bone loss was calculated by digital panoramic radiography 5 years after implant restoration in both groups. The number of cases of base loosening was counted and the implant effect of the two systems was evaluated. Results In group A, 17 cases got some effects, and 11 cases had great effects, the total effective rate was 93.33%. In group B, 13 cases got some effrcts, and 16 cases had great effects, and the total effective rate was 96.43%. There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The average bone resorption at implant margin was (1.47±0.17) mm in group A, while that was (0.57±0.13)mm in group B, and there significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). In group A, there were 2 cases of base loosening 5 years after implantation, the incidence was 6.67%;while in group B, 1 case had base loosening, and the incidence was 3.33%;there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of base loosening (P>0.05). Conclusions There are some differences in bone resorption between the two implant systems, but the two implant systems can achieve good clinical efficacy. The appropriate implant system should be selected according to the actual situation of patients in order to ensure that patients get the best therapeutic effect.