两种不同骨替代材料在即刻种植下颌后牙区周围骨缺损中的临床效果对比

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Two Different Bone Substitute Materials in the Peri-implant Bone Defects of Immediate Implantation in Mandibular Posterior Region

目的探讨Bio-Oss和PerioGlas两种骨替代材料在即刻种植下颌后牙区周围骨缺损中的临床效果。方法选取2016年10月—2017年10月葛洲坝中心医院收治的下颌后牙区种植体周围骨缺损患者80例为研究对象,共植入种植体124颗。根据骨替代材料的不同将124颗种植体分为Bio-Oss组(68颗)和PerioGlas组(56颗)。比较两组患者种植体存留率、手术前后唇腭向骨板宽度及改变量、术后边缘骨水平(MBL)改变量、主观满意度等指标差异性。结果两组患者种植体存留率、主观满意度比较,差异无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);两组患者术后即刻、术后6个月、术后12个月唇腭向骨板宽度与术前比较均升高,且Bio-Oss组高于PerioGlas组(P<0.05),Bio-Oss组患者术后即刻与6个月改变量小于PerioGlas组(P<0.05),两组患者术后6个月与12个月改变量比较,差异无统计学意义(P﹥0.05);BioOss组患者术后6个月、12个月的MBL水平均低于PerioGlas组(P<0.05),两组间改变量比较差异无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。结论 Bio-Oss和PerioGlas两种骨替代材料在即刻种植下颌后牙区周围骨缺损中均具有较好的成骨能力和成骨效果,Bio-Oss骨吸收相对较慢,有利于唇侧骨壁宽度的维持。

Objective To explore the clinical effects of Bio-Oss and PerioGlas bone substitute materials in the periimplant bone defects of immediate implantation in mandibular posterior region.Methods 80 patients with peri-implant bone defects in the mandibular posterior region who were treated in hospital from October 2016 to October 2017 were selected for the study,and a total of 124 implants were implanted.124 implants were divided into Bio-Oss group(68 implants)and PerioGlas group(56 implants)according to different bone substitute materials.The implant retention rate,lip and palate width to bone plate and change before and after surgery,postoperative marginal bone level(MBL)change and subjective satisfaction were compared between the two groups.Results There were no significant differences in implant retention rate and subjective satisfaction between the two groups(P>0.05).The lip and palate width to bone plate immediately after surgery,at 6 months after surgery and at 12 months after surgery was significantly increased compared with that before surgery,and the width in BioOss group was higher than that in PerioGlas group(P<0.05),and the change in Bio-Oss group immediately after surgery and at 6 months after surgery was less than that in PerioGlas group(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference in the change at 6 months and 12 months after surgery between the two groups(P>0.05).The MBL level in Bio-Oss group was lower than that in PerioGlas group at 6 months and 12 months after surgery(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference in the change between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion Bio-Oss and PerioGlas bone substitute materials both have good osteogenic capability and osteogenesis effects in the peri-implant bone defects of immediate implantation in mandibular posterior region.Bio-Oss has relatively slow bone resorption,and it is beneficial to the maintenance of width of labial bone wall.