|
|
- 2018
牙周生物型对前牙区同期行GBR的种植修复美学效果的影响
|
Abstract:
摘要 目的:不同牙周生物型对美学区同期行引导骨再生术(Guided Bone Regeneration,GBR)的延期种植的红白美学效果的影响。方法:通过缺牙区同名牙或临近牙牙周探诊目测法随机分为A组:薄龈生物型15例;B组:厚龈生物型17例,共32例患者。种植体植入前进行牙槽嵴顶和牙槽嵴顶下3 mm牙龈厚度的测量,基台带入前再次进行相同位置牙龈厚度的测量;上部结构完成后的0、6、9月,修复及正畸医师对红色美学区进行红色美学指数(Pink Esthetic Score,PES)和牙冠的白色美学指数(White Esthetic Score,WES)分别评分。结果:A组:术前种植区牙槽嵴顶下3 mm牙龈厚度(1.39±0.34 mm)＜1.5 mm,P＞0.05,差异无统计学意义;B组:术前术后种植区牙槽嵴顶下3 mm牙龈厚度均＞1.5 mm,P＜0.05,统计学差异明显。A、B组牙槽嵴顶牙龈厚度在术前术后均＞1.5 mm,P＜0.05,统计学差异明显。A、B组两位点术前术后配对比较P＜0.05,有明显统计学差异。第0、6、9月PES评分:A组:为(9.90±0.99)、(11.53±0.82)、(10.77±0.77)。B组:为(11.03±0.80)、(12.32±0.64)、(11.59±0.61)。第0、6、9月WES评分A组:为(7.23±0.63)、(8.20±0.48)、(7.83±0.59)。B组:为(7.50±0.56)、(8.38±0.49)、(8.15±0.61)。B组的PES指数评分优于A组(P＜0.05)且组内0、6、9月统计学差异明显;WES评分A、B两组间无明显统计学差异,组内0、6、9月统计学差异明显。PES和WES存在明显相关性。结论:1)同期行GBR延期种植修复可以增加种植区牙槽嵴顶及牙槽嵴顶下3 mm的牙龈厚度;2)厚龈生物型患者较薄龈生物型患者在延期种植同期GBR的修复方式中较易获得良好的红色美学效果;3)不同牙周生物型患者在在延期种植同期GBR的修复方式后PES与WES存在正相关(r2=0.185)
| [1] | Bonacci FJ. Hard and soft tissue augmentation in a postorthodontie patient:a case report [J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent,2011,31(1)∶19-27 |
| [2] | Sin YW, Chang HY, Yun WH, et al. Association of gingival biotype with the results of scaling and root planing [J]. J Periodontal Implant Sci, 2013, 43(6)∶283-290 |
| [3] | Fava J, Lin M, Zahran M, et al. Single implant-supported crowns in the aesthetic zone: patient satisfaction with aesthetic appearance compared with appraisals by laypeople and dentists [J]. Clin Oral Implan Res, 2015, 26(10)∶1113 |
| [4] | Cabello G, Rioboo M, Fábrega JG. Immediate placement and restoration of implants in the aesthetic zone with a trimodal approach: soft tissue alterations and its relation to gingival biotype [J]. Clin Oral Implan Res, 2013, 24(10)∶1094-1100 |
| [5] | Chen ST, Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla--a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implan, 2014, 29 Suppl(1)∶186 |
| [6] | Shi JY, Wang R, Zhuang LF, et al. Esthetic outcome of single implant crowns following type 1 and type 3 implant placement: a systematic review [J]. Clin Oral Implan Res, 2015, 26(7)∶768 |
| [7] | Prabhakar P, Bhuvaneshwarri B. Guided Bone Regeneration-A Review [J]. Biomed Pharma J, 2015, 8∶365-368 |
| [8] | Happe A, Schulte-Mattler V, Strassert C, et al. In vitro color changes of soft tissues caused by dyed fluorescent zirconia and nondyed, nonfluorescent zirconia in thin mucosa [J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2013, 33(1)∶e1-8 |
| [9] | Buser D, Halbritter S, Hart C, et al. Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients [J]. J Periodontol, 2009, 80(1)∶152-162 |
| [10] | Plonka AB, Sheridan RA, Wang HL. Flap Designs for Flap Advancement During Implant Therapy: A Systematic Review [J]. Implant Dent, 2017, 26(1)∶145 |
| [11] | Raes F, Cosyn J, Crommelinck E, et al. Immediate and conventional single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: 1-year results of a case series on hard and soft tissue response and aesthetics [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2011, 38(4)∶385 |
| [12] | Jeong JS, Lee SY, Chang M. Alterations of papilla dimensions after orthodontic closure of the maxillary midline diastema: a retrospective longitudinal study [J]. J Periodontal Implant Sci, 2016, 46(3)∶197-206 |
| [13] | Esfahrood ZR, Kadkhodazadeh M, Talebi Ardakani MR. Gingival biotype: a review [J]. Gen Dent, 2013, 61(4)∶14-17 |
