切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版)

中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01) : 48 -52. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2018.01.008

所属专题： 文献；

临床研究

平台转移对上颌前牙区种植修复美学和边缘骨吸收的影响
刘欣1, 黄宝鑫1, 李志鹏1, 古佩明1, 梁晓铟1, 邵建婷1, 陈卓凡1,†()   
  1. 1. 510055　广州，中山大学光华口腔医学院·附属口腔医院，广东省口腔医学重点实验室
  • 收稿日期:2017-12-04 出版日期:2018-02-01
  • 通信作者: 陈卓凡
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81400550、81470783)

Evaluation of radiographic and aesthetic outcome of platform switching or regular platform implants in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study

Xin Liu1, Baoxin Huang1, Zhipeng Li1, Peiming Gu1, Xiaoyin Liang1, Jianting Shao1, Zhuofan Chen1,†()   

  1. 1. Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou 510055, China
  • Received:2017-12-04 Published:2018-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Zhuofan Chen
  • About author:
    Corresponding author:Chen Zhuofan,Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

刘欣, 黄宝鑫, 李志鹏, 古佩明, 梁晓铟, 邵建婷, 陈卓凡. 平台转移对上颌前牙区种植修复美学和边缘骨吸收的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(01): 48-52.

Xin Liu, Baoxin Huang, Zhipeng Li, Peiming Gu, Xiaoyin Liang, Jianting Shao, Zhuofan Chen. Evaluation of radiographic and aesthetic outcome of platform switching or regular platform implants in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(01): 48-52.

目的

探讨不同种植体-基台连接方式对上颌前牙区单牙缺失种植修复疗效的影响。

方法

本回顾性研究纳入2013—2016年于中山大学附属口腔医院就诊进行上颌前牙区单牙缺失种植修复的24例患者25枚种植体，其中平台转移组12例（12枚种植体）、平台对接组12例（13枚种植体）。术后平均随访14个月，通过拍摄临床照片和X线片检查，进行红色美学指数（PES）和白色美学指数（WES）评估并评估种植体周围边缘骨吸收（MBL），应用非参数检验（Mann-Whitney U检验）进行统计分析。

结果

平台转移组与平台对接组均获得100%的种植体存留率。平台转移组MBL为[（0.38 ± 0.39）mm]，低于平台对接组[（0.98 ± 0.48）mm]，差异有统计学意义（U= 133.5，P= 0.002）。平台转移组和平台对接组PES分别为（9.33 ± 2.61）和（8.15 ± 1.73）分，差异无统计学意义（U= 52.5，P= 0.168）。平台转移组和平台对接组WES分别（6.83 ± 1.59）和（7.15 ± 2.58）分，差异无统计学意义（U= 92.5，P= 0.437）。

结论

采用平台转移和平台对接两种种植体-基台连接方式进行上颌前牙区单牙缺失种植修复均可获得高的种植体存留率和满意的美学效果。平台转移可以减少种植体周围MBL，但其修复远期效果有待进一步临床观察。

关键词: 美学，牙科, 骨质吸收, 平台转移，牙种植, 红色美学指数, 白色美学指数
Objective

To compare the influence of platform switching or regular platform implants on radiographic and aesthetic outcome in the maxillary anterior zone.

Methods

Patients who had received single implant in the anterior maxilla from 2013 to 2016 in Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled. A total of 24 patients receiving 25 implants meeting the inclusion criteria were recruited and divided into two groups: platform-switching interface group (n= 12) and matching butt-joint interface group (n= 13) . The overall mean follow-up period was 14 months. Photographs were taken and the aesthetic outcome was assessed according to pink esthetic score and white esthetic score (PES and WES) and marginal bone loss (MBL) was measured with standardized digital intra-oral radiographs. Non parametric variables were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results

The survival rate of implants in both the two groups was 100%. MBL in the platform switching group (0.38 ± 0.39) mm was less than that in the platform matching group (0.98 ± 0.48) mm, which was statistically different (U= 133.5, P= 0.002) . According to the professional assessments, PES in platform switching group was 9.33 ± 2.61, while PES in platform matching group was 8.15 ± 1.73, which was not statistically different (U= 52.5, P= 0.168) . WES in platform switching group was 6.83 ± 1.59, while WES in platform matching group was 7.15 ± 2.58, which was not statistically different either (U= 92.5, P= 0.437) .

Conclusions

Platform witching and regular platform implants yielded high survival rate and comparable aesthetic outcome in the maxillary anterior zone. MBL in platform switching group was less than that in platform matching group.

Key words: Esthetics, dental, Bone resorption, Platform switching, dental implant, Pink esthetic score, White esthetic score
图1 复诊种植体根尖片测量边缘骨吸收示意图
图3 复诊种植体口内照片评估白色美学指数示意图　1：牙冠形态；2：牙冠外形轮廓；3：牙冠颜色；4：牙冠质地；5：牙冠透明度
表1 两组不同种植体-基台连接方式对边缘骨吸收（MBL）的影响（mm）
组别 种植体数（枚） MBL( ± s) 极小值 极大值 U值 P值
平台转移组 12 0.38 ± 0.39 0 1.03 133.5 0.002
平台对接组 13 0.98 ± 0.48 0 1.82 ? ?
表2 两组不同种植体-基台连接方式红色美学评分（PES）比较（分）
组别 种植体数（枚） PES( ± s) 极小值 极大值 U值 P值
平台转移组 12 9.33 ± 2.61 5 13 52.5 0.168
平台对接组 13 8.15 ± 1.73 6 12 ? ?
表3 两组不同种植体-基台连接方式白色美学评分（WES）比较（分）
组别 种植体数（枚） WES( ± s) 极小值 极大值 U值 P值
平台转移组 12 6.83 ± 1.59 5 10 92.5 0.437
平台对接组 13 7.15 ± 2.58 2 10 ? ?
[1]
Papaspyridakos P，Chen CJ，Singh M，et al. Success criteria in implant dentistry：a systematic review[J]. J Dent Res，2012，91（3）：242-248.
[2]
Strietzel FP，Neumann K，Hertel M. Impact of platform switching on marginal peri-implant bone-level changes. A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2015，26（3）：342-358.
[3]
Hsu YT，Lin GH，Wang HL. Effects of Platform-Switching on Peri-implant Soft and Hard Tissue Outcomes：A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，2017，32（1）：e9-e24.
[4]
Huang B，Meng H，Piao M，et al. Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implant：a clinical and radiographic study in dogs[J]. J Periodontol，2012，83（9）：1164-1171.
[5]
Fürhauser R，Florescu D，Benesch T，et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns：the pink esthetic score[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2005，16（6）：639-644.
[6]
Belser UC，Grutter L，Vailati F，et al. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria：a cross-sectional，retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2-to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores[J]. J Periodontol，2009，80（1）：140-151.
[7]
Ross SB，Pette GA，Parker WB，et al. Gingival margin changes in maxillary anterior sites after single immediate implant placement and provisionalization：a 5-year retrospective study of 47 patients[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，2014，29（1）：127-134.
[8]
Benic GI，Wolleb K，Sancho-Puchades M，et al. Systematic review of parameters and methods for the professional assessment of aesthetics in dental implant research[J]. J Clin Periodontol，2012（39 Suppl 12）：160-192.
[9]
Kuchler U，Chappuis V，Gruber R，et al. Immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone：10-year clinical and radiographic outcomes[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2016，27（2）：253-257.
[10]
Maeda Y，Miura J，Taki I，et al. Biomechanical analysis on platform switching：is there any biomechanical rationale？[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2007，18（5）：581-584.
[11]
Telleman G，Raghoebar GM，Vissink A，et al. Impact of platform switching on peri-implant bone remodeling around short implants in the posterior region，1-year results from a split-mouth clinical trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2014，16（1）：70-80.
[12]
Enkling N，Jöhren P，Katsoulis J，et al. Influence of platform switching on bone-level alterations：a three-year randomized clinical trial[J]. J Dent Res，2013，92（12 Suppl）：139S-145S.
[13]
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 Implants Res，2013，24（10）：1094-1100.
[14]
Cosyn J，Hooghe N，De Bruyn H. A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment[J]. J Clin Periodontol，2012，39（6）：582-589.
[15]
Huynh-Ba G，Pjetursson BE，Sanz M，et al. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2010，21（1）：37-42.
[16]
Younes F，Eghbali A，Raes M，et al. Relationship between buccal bone and gingival thickness revisited using non-invasive registration methods[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2016，27（5）：523-528.
[17]
Arora H，Ivanovski S. Correlation between pre-operative buccal bone thickness and soft tissue changes around immediately placed and restored implants in the maxillary anterior region：A 2-year prospective study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2017，28（10）：1188-1194.
[18]
Jung RE，Herzog M，Wolleb K，et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing small buccal dehiscence defects around dental implants treated with guided bone regeneration or left for spontaneous healing[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2017，28（3）：348-354.
[19]
Cosyn J，Eghbali A，Hanselaer L，et al. Four modalities of single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla：a clinical，radiographic，and aesthetic evaluation[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2013，15（4）：517-530.
[20]
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 Implants Res，2015，26（7）：768-774.
[1] 李秋兰, 李希庭, 王晓东. 数字化技术引导下的美学修复一例[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 260-264.
[2] 林娟, 李燕燕, 宋晓萌, 朱珠, 谢雯静, 张玮. 前牙美学区牙槽嵴保存延期种植的临床研究[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(02): 92-97.
[3] 孙瑞瞳, 李享宜, 胡一淳, 高嘉阳, 胡博, 战德松, 付佳乐. 硅基陶瓷的临床应用现状与展望[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(02): 72-78.
[4] 汤文雅, 叶赛, 袁长永. 血液提取物在前牙软组织美学方面的应用[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 188-192.
[5] 杨小平, 骆丹丽. 下颌前突患者术后软组织侧貌美学缺陷分析[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2015, 09(06): 437-441.
[6] 亓玉彬, 李栋, 马焕芝. 原发性甲状旁腺功能亢进症性病理性骨折的诊治启示[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2017, 05(04): 277-280.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号