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] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 殳畅,韩烨,孙雨哲,杨再目,侯建霞. Ⅲ期牙周炎患者牙周基础治疗前后炎症性贫血相关指标的变化[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(1): 45-50.
[4] 王聪伟,高敏,于尧,章文博,彭歆. 游离腓骨瓣修复下颌骨缺损术后义齿修复的临床分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(1): 66-73.
[5] 李穗,马雯洁,王时敏,丁茜,孙瑶,张磊. 上前牙种植单冠修复体切导的数字化设计正确度[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(1): 81-87.
[6] 刘晓强,周寅. 牙种植同期植骨术围术期高血压的相关危险因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(1): 93-98.
[7] 裴喜燕,阳雯,欧阳翔英,孙凤. 牙周内窥镜下根面清创与牙周翻瓣术疗效比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(4): 716-720.
[8] 丁茜,李文锦,孙丰博,谷景华,林元华,张磊. 表面处理对氧化钇和氧化镁稳定的氧化锆种植体晶相及断裂强度的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(4): 721-728.
[9] 欧蒙恩,丁云,唐卫峰,周永胜. 基台边缘-牙冠的平台转移结构中粘接剂流动的三维有限元分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(3): 548-552.
[10] 孙菲,刘建,李思琪,危伊萍,胡文杰,王翠. 种植体黏膜下微生物在健康种植体和种植体周炎中的构成与差异:一项横断面研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 30-37.
[11] 温静,欧阳翔英,裴喜燕,邱善湧,刘健如,刘文逸,曹采方. 重度牙周炎患者4年自然进展失牙的多因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 70-77.
[12] 朱小玲,李文静,王宪娥,宋文莉,徐莉,张立,冯向辉,路瑞芳,释栋,孟焕新. 细胞色素B-245α链及胆固醇酯转运蛋白基因多态性与广泛型侵袭性牙周炎易感性的关系[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(1): 18-22.
[13] 王鹃,尉华杰,孙井德,邱立新. 预成刚性连接杆用于无牙颌种植即刻印模制取的应用评价[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(1): 187-192.
[14] 徐欣然,霍芃呈,和璐,孟焕新,朱筠轩,靳东思奇. 伴与不伴糖尿病的牙周炎患者牙周基础治疗的疗效比较及其与白细胞水平的相关分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(1): 48-53.
[15] 梁峰,吴敏节,邹立东. 后牙区单牙种植修复5年后的临床修复疗效观察[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(5): 970-976.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!