北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2018, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (2): 300-307. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2018.02.016

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

锥形锁柱种植体用于因牙周炎缺牙患者修复的临床观察

张海东,张立,释栋,韩劼,闫夏,谢也斯,孟焕新△   

  1. (北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院,牙周科口腔数字化医疗技术和材料国家工程实验室口腔数字医学北京市重点实验室, 北京100081)
  • 出版日期:2018-04-18 发布日期:2018-04-18
  • 通讯作者: 孟焕新 E-mail:kqhxmeng@bjmu.edu.cn

Clinical study of locking-taper implants in patients treated for periodontitis

ZHANG Hai-dong, ZHANG Li, SHI Dong, HAN Jie, YAN Xia, XIE Ye-si, MENG Huan-xin△   

  1. (Department of Peiriodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China)
  • Online:2018-04-18 Published:2018-04-18
  • Contact: MENG Huan-xin E-mail:kqhxmeng@bjmu.edu.cn

摘要: 目的:比较因非牙周炎(non-periodontitis,NP)、慢性牙周炎(chronic periodontitis,CP)、侵袭性牙周炎(aggressive periodontitis,AgP)失牙患者行Bicon种植修复后1~5年种植体存留率及种植体周围组织探诊指标变化。方法:基于前瞻性队列研究,纳入2008年9月至2012 年9月于北京大学口腔医院牙周科就诊的缺牙患者145名,共植入种植体315枚。其中CP失牙患者70例,AgP失牙患者31例,NP失牙患者44例,分别植入132、83、100枚种植体。对研究对象进行问卷调查和随访,检查并记录患者刮治前(T0)、种植前(T1)、复查时(T2)的牙周临床指标,记录种植修复完成时及T2时的种植体周围组织牙周指标并拍摄X线根尖片,T2时记录种植体存留情况。采用t检验比较不同分组的种植体存留率、种植体探诊深度(probing depth,PD)变化。结果:经系统牙周基础治疗后,T1时期CP组和AgP组PD≥6 mm位点百分比(%)较T0时显著降低(P<0.001),且T2与T1相比,PD≥6 mm位点百分比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。NP组、CP组和AgP组种植体1~5年存留率分别为100%、97.6%和100%,三组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。T2时,CP组与AgP组种植体平均PD分别为2.96 mm、2.97 mm,显著高于NP组(2.78 mm)(P=0.006,P=0.010);CP组与AgP组种植体平均PD≥6 mm位点百分比分别为3.7%、4.8%,显著高于NP组(1.2%)(P=0.003,P<0.001);CP组种植体PD较修复完成时增加2 mm以上的位点百分比为8.4%,显著高于NP组(4.3%,P=0.003),但AgP组与NP组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:经积极牙周基础治疗,CP和AgP患者牙周状况在种植前得到显著改善,并在种植修复完成1~5年后基本稳定;CP和AgP患者植入锥形锁柱种植体的短期累积存留率与NP患者相近,但CP和AgP患者种植体周围组织PD随时间增加的趋势更为明显。

关键词: 牙周炎, 牙种植, 骨内, 种植体周围炎, 随访研究, 探诊深度

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the survival rate and peri-implant clinical parameters of Locking-Taper implants in patients having lost their teeth due to non-periodontitis (NP) reasons, chronic perio-dontitis (CP) and aggressive periodontitis (AgP). Methods: In the study, 145 subjects were installed with 315 Bicon Locking-Taper implants and followed up for 1-5 years. The subjects and implants were classified into three groups, tooth loss by NP, CP and AgP. NP included 44 subjects with 100 implants, CP 70 subjects with 132 implants and AgP 31 subjects with 83 implants. Periodontal parameters before subgingival scaling and root planning (T0), at the end of active periodontal therapy (T1) and at the time of last recall (T2) were recorded. Right after the installation of final restoration and at the time of last recall (T2), periimplant probing parameters were recorded. Results: After active periodontal therapy, mean probing depth (PD) in CP and AgP were reduced from 4.05 mm, 5.20 mm at T0 to 3.07 mm, 2.96 mm at T1 (P<0.001, P<0.001), (PD≥6 mm)% were reduced from 33.2%, 58.5% at T0 to 14.4%, 10.5% at T1 (P<0.001, P<0.001). The periodontal parameters remained stable at T2 compared with T1 (P>0.05). Cumulative survival rates of implants in NP, CP and AgP were 100%, 97.6% and 100% for 1-5 years’ follow-ups with no statistical significance found. At T2, mean implant PD was 2.78 mm, 2.96 mm and 2.97 mm in NP, CP and AgP, with NP significantly lower than the other two groups (P=0.006, P=0.01). The percentage of implant sites with PD≥6 mm was 3.7% in CP and 4.8% in AgP, both significantly higher than NP (P=0.003, P<0.001). 8.4% implant sites showed at least 2 mm deeper than those at prosthesis installation were found in CP group, significantly higher than NP (4.3%, P=0.003). Conclusion: Periodontal conditions of patients having lost their teeth for chronic and aggressive periodontitis were significantly improved after active periodontal therapy and remained stable during 1-5 years. Short-term survival rates of Locking-Taper implants in patients treated for CP and AgP was no less than those who lost their teeth for non-periodontitis reasons. More sites with increasing peri-implant probing depth were found in CP and AgP patients, compared with NP.

Key words: Periodontitis, Dental implantation, endosseous, Peri-implantitis, Follow-up studies, Probing depth

中图分类号: 

  • R781.42
[1] 刘嘉昱, 祝宁, 张育祯, 高贤明, 张宇. 动态导航辅助环钻取骨的准确性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(2): 365-371.
[2] 杨咏涛, 田淯文, 单珅瑶, 李文博, 商相宜, 王艺蓁, 郭殊玮, 高梓翔, 温奥楠, 赵一姣, 王勇. 基于多视图立体视觉的无牙颌种植固定修复软组织数字印模的方法[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(1): 126-132.
[3] 潘莲菲, 李文静, 王瑞洋, 焦剑, 曹战强, 高丽, 释栋. 口服抗生素辅助牙周机械治疗对重度牙周炎的短期疗效及影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(1): 30-36.
[4] 张斯巧, 刘建, 徐涛, 胡文杰, 张浩筠, 危伊萍. 异种骨与人工合成骨在磨牙拔牙同期微翻瓣牙槽嵴保存术中的临床效果比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2026, 58(1): 74-83.
[5] 王宇蓝, 曾浩, 张玉峰. 口腔种植中血浆基质的临床转化现状与前沿探索[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 836-840.
[6] 马保金, 李建华, 桑元华, 于洋, 仇吉川, 邵金龙, 李凯, 刘世岳, 杜密, 商玲玲, 葛少华. 基于微环境和干细胞调控的牙周组织再生关键技术的建立与应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 841-846.
[7] 曹沛, 栾庆先. 牙周炎与全身系统性疾病的思考与探索[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 852-858.
[8] 于子杨, 郭厚佐, 蒋析, 韩玮华, 林野. 穿颧种植体上颌窦段成骨的影像学研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(5): 967-974.
[9] 包振英, 王雅杰. 炎症指标和细胞因子联合检测在慢性牙周炎中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(4): 772-778.
[10] 石宇彤, 危伊萍, 胡文杰, 徐涛, 张浩筠. 罹患重度牙周炎下颌磨牙拔牙微翻瓣牙槽嵴保存效果评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(1): 33-41.
[11] 李敬谦, 朱子璐, 焦剑, 施捷. 隐形矫治重度牙周炎患者前牙区病理性移位患牙的临床疗效[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(1): 51-56.
[12] 王鹃, 邱立新, 尉华杰. 下颌磨牙穿龈形态设计对种植体周围软组织影响的随机对照临床研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(1): 65-72.
[13] 李虹, 马斐斐, 翁金龙, 杜阳, 吴彬彰, 孙凤. 口腔即刻种植时动态导航系统的种植精度分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2025, 57(1): 85-90.
[14] 胡玉如,刘娟,李文静,赵亦兵,李启强,路瑞芳,孟焕新. Ⅲ期或Ⅳ期牙周炎患者龈沟液中有机酸浓度与牙周炎的关系[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(2): 332-337.
[15] 张晗,秦亦瑄,韦帝远,韩劼. 牙周炎患者种植修复维护治疗依从性的影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(1): 39-44.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!