舌侧集中与解剖式全口义齿修复低平牙槽嵴疗效分析

Efficacy analysis of complete denture with lingualized occlusion and anatomic occlusion for the repair of low alveolar ridge

目的分析比较舌侧集中 与解剖式[牙合]全口义齿修复低平牙槽嵴的治疗效果。方法130例低平牙槽嵴患者,随机分成对照组和观察组,各65例。对照组给予解剖式[牙合]治疗,观察组给予舌侧集中[牙合]治疗。对比两组患者的全口义齿修复效果(舒适性、语音功能、固位功效、咀嚼效果、美观程度)评分、治疗效果、治疗满意度以及3、6和12个月后的全口咀嚼率。结果治疗后,观察组患者全口义齿舒适性、语音功效、固位功效、咀嚼效果、美观程度评分均高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组治疗3个月全口义齿咀嚼效率(0.682±0.026)、治疗6个月全口义齿咀嚼效率(0.737±0.042)、治疗12个月全口义齿咀嚼效率(0.701±0.033)均高于对照组的(0.573±0.031)、(0.667±0.027)、(0.581±0.048),差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),并且两组均在治疗6个月时,全口咀嚼功能最佳;观察组总有效率81.54%明显高于对照组的47.69%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组治疗满意度95.38%高于对照组的78.46%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论舌侧集中 修复低平牙槽嵴的治疗效果、牙齿功能恢复方面均优于解剖式治疗,可以在临床上进行推广使用。

Objective To analyze and compare the therapeutic effect of complete denture with lingualized occlusion and anatomic occlusion for the repair of low alveolar ridge. Methods A total of 130 patients with low alveolar ridge were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 65 cases in each group. The control group was treated with anatomic occlusion, and the observation group was treated with lingualized occlusion. Comparison was made on repair effect score of complete denture(comfort, voice function, retention effect, chewing effect, aesthetic degree), treatment effect, degree of satisfaction with treatment and complete chewing rate after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment between the two groups. Results After treatment, the comfort, voice function, retention effect, chewing effect, aesthetic degree score of complete denture in the observation group was higher than those in the control group, and their difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The complete chewing rate after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment were(0.682±0.026),(0.737±0.042) and(0.701±0.033) in the observation group, which was higher than(0.573±0.031),(0.667±0.027) and(0.581±0.048) in the control group, and their difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The complete chewing function was the best in both groups after 6 months of treatment. The total effective rate 81.54% in the observation group was obviously higher than 47.69% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The degree of satisfaction with treatment 95.38% in the observation group was higher than 78.46% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion Lingualized occlusion is superior to anatomic occlusion in the treatment of low alveolar ridge and restoration of tooth function, which can be widely promoted and used in clinic.