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) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (05) : 284 -290. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2019.05.005

所属专题： 文献；

临床研究

两种材料在拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存术中的应用效果
赖思煜1,†(), 习利军1, 倪俊鑫1   
  1. 1. 广州中医药大学深圳医院口腔科，深圳　518034
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-29 出版日期:2019-10-01
  • 通信作者: 赖思煜

Application effect of two materials in preservation of guided bone regeneration sites after tooth extraction and its influence on short-term aesthetics

Siyu Lai1,†(), Lijun Xi1, Junxin Ni1   

  1. 1. Department of Stomatology, Shenzhen Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518034, China
  • Received:2019-05-29 Published:2019-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Siyu Lai
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Lai Siyu, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

赖思煜, 习利军, 倪俊鑫. 两种材料在拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存术中的应用效果[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(05): 284-290.

Siyu Lai, Lijun Xi, Junxin Ni. Application effect of two materials in preservation of guided bone regeneration sites after tooth extraction and its influence on short-term aesthetics[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(05): 284-290.

目的

探讨富血小板纤维蛋白（PRF）与口腔胶原膜应用于拔牙后引导骨组织再生（GBR）位点保存术中的效果。

方法

从2016年6月至2018年9月期间收治的拔牙后GBR位点保存患者中选取84例进行研究，采用随机数字表法分组，观察组与对照组各42例，两组微创拔牙后均植入Bio-Oss骨替代材料，观察组表面覆盖PRF膜，对照组表面覆盖口腔胶原膜（海奥），对两组创面愈合率、牙槽骨宽度及高度、美学评分进行观察，采用独立样本t检验进行比较。

结果

观察组术后2周创面愈合率为（77.1 ± 6.1）%，与同期对照组（65.8 ± 3.7）%对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 10.188，P<0.001）；观察组术后4周创面愈合率为（98.8 ± 12.5）%，与同期对照组（78.7 ± 7.1）%对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 9.084，P<0.001）。拔牙前，两组牙槽骨高度差异无统计学意义（t = 0.022，P = 0.982）；拔牙后1个月，观察组牙槽骨高度为（15.1 ± 1.9）mm，与同期对照组（14.2 ± 1.8）mm对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 2.091，P = 0.039）；拔牙后3个月，观察组牙槽骨高度为（14.2 ± 1.8）mm，与同期对照组（14.0 ± 1.3）mm，差异有统计学意义（t = 2.608，P = 0.010）。拔牙前，两组牙槽骨宽度差异无统计学意义（t=0.062，P=0.950）；拔牙后1个月，观察组牙槽骨宽度为（7.1 ± 0.6）mm，与同期对照组（6.8 ± 0.7）mm对比，差异有统计学意义（t=2.392，P=0.019）；拔牙后3个月，观察组牙槽骨宽度为（6.9 ± 0.4）mm，与同期对照组（6.4 ± 0.5）mm对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 5.748，P<0.001）。修复后即刻，两组PES评分差异无统计学意义（t = 0.142，P = 0.887）；修复后3个月，观察组PES评分为（12.4 ± 4.0）分，与同期对照组（10.5 ± 2.0）分对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 2.644，P = 0.009）；修复后6个月，两组PES评分差异无统计学意义（t = 0.617，P = 0.538）。修复后即刻，两组WES评分差异无统计学意义（t = 0.261，P = 0.794）；修复后3个月，观察组WES评分为（9.1 ± 1.0）分，与同期对照组（8.1 ± 0.7）分对比，差异有统计学意义（t = 5.176，P<0.001）；修复后6个月，两组WES差异无统计学意义（t = 1.318，P = 0.191）。

结论

PRF用于拔牙后GBR位点保存术中的效果优于口腔胶原膜，可提高创面愈合率，也能保持牙槽骨宽度与高度，取得满意的短期美学效果，更值得推广。

关键词: 富血小板纤维蛋白, 引导骨组织再生, 伤口愈合, 美学评分, 胶原膜, 位点保存术
Objective

To evaluate the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and Haiao collagen membrane on the site preservation after tooth extraction with guided bone regeneration (GBR) .

Methods

A total of 84 cases received site preservation after tooth extraction with GBR from June 2016 to September 2018, were selected and grouped with the random number table method. Both the test and control group enrolled 42 cases for each. A bone substitute (Bio-Oss) was filled in the socket after minimally invasive tooth extraction. The test and control groups were covered with PRF and Haiao collagen membrane, respectively. Then, the wound healing rate, alveolar bone width and height, and aesthetic score of two groups were recorded and compared with the independent sample t test.

Results

The wound healing rate after two weeks in the test group was (77.1 ± 6.14) %, compared with the control group of (65.8 ± 3.7) %, which was significantly higher (t= 10.188, P<0.001) . The wound healing rate after four weeks in the test group was (98.8 ± 12.5) %, compared with the control group of (78.7 ± 7.1) %, which was significantly higher (t = 9.084, P<0.001) . There was no significant difference in alveolar bone height between the two groups before extraction (t = 0.022, P = 0.982) . After extraction for one month, the alveolar bone height in the test group was (15.1 ± 1.9) mm. Compared with the control group of (14.2 ± 1.8) mm, it was significantly higher (t = 2.091, P=0.039) . After extraction for three months, the alveolar bone height in the test group was (14.2 ± 1.8) mm. Compared with the control group of (14.0 ± 1.3) mm, the test group was significantly higher (t = 2.608, P = 0.010) . There was no significant difference in alveolar bone width between the two groups before extraction (t = 0.062, P = 0.950) . After extraction for one month, the alveolar bone width in the test group was (7.1 ± 0.6) mm. Compared with the control group of (6.8 ± 0.7) mm, it was significantly wider (t = 2.392, P = 0.019) . After extraction for three months, the alveolar bone width in the test group was (6.9 ± 0.4) mm. Compared with the control group of (6.4 ± 0.5) mm, it was significantly wider (t = 5.748, P<0.001) . There was no significant difference in the PES scores between the two groups after immediate restoration (t = 0.142, P = 0.887) . After three months, the PES score in the test group was (12.4 ± 4.0) , and the control group was (10.5 ± 2.0) . The former was significantly higher (t = 2.644, P = 0.009) . After six months, the PES score in the test group was (12.9 ± 4.18) . Compared with the control group of (12.5 ± 3.7) , the test group was significantly higher (t = 0.617, P = 0.538) . There was no significant difference in the WES scores between two groups after immediate restoration (t = 0.261, P = 0.794) . After three months, the WES score in the test and control groups were (9.1 ± 1.0) and (8.1 ± 0.7) , respectively, indicating the former was significantly higher (t = 5.176, P<0.001) . After six months, there was no significant difference in the WES score between the two groups (t = 1.318, P = 0.191) .

Conclusions

The effect of PRF on the site preservation after tooth extraction with GBR was better than that of Haiao membrane, which indicated that PRF can improve the wound healing rate, maintain the width and height of alveolar bone, and achieve satisfactory short-term aesthetic effect.

Key words: Platelet-rich fibrin, Guided bone regeneration, Wound healing, Aesthetic score, Collagen membranes, Site preservation
表1 两组拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存患者基线资料比较
组别 例数 性别（男/女） 年龄（岁） 拔牙位置（磨牙/前磨牙） 牙槽骨密度(Hu)
观察组 42 24/18 42.51 ± 3.06 35/7 721.52 ± 31.58
对照组 42 22/20 42.47 ± 3.02 33/9 725.79 ± 32.44
检验值 ? χ2 = 0.192 t = 0.060 χ2=0.308 t = 0.611
P值 ? 0.661 0.952 0.578 0.543
图1 拔牙后引导骨组织再生（GBR）位点保存患者拔牙前后口内照及影像学检查　A：拔牙前口内照；B：拔牙前根尖片；C：GBR手术；D：GBR术后3个月全颌曲面断层片
表2 拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存患者术后2、4周创面愈合率比较（%， ± s）
组别 例数 术后2周 术后4周
观察组 42 77.1 ± 6.1 98.8 ± 12.5
对照组 42 65.8 ± 3.7 78.7 ± 7.1
χ2值 ? 10.188 9.084
P值 ? 0.000 0.000
表3 拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存患者拔牙前、后牙槽骨宽度与高度比较（mm， ± s）
组别 例数 牙槽骨高度 牙槽骨宽度
拔牙前 拔牙后1个月 拔牙后3个月 拔牙前 拔牙后1个月 拔牙后3个月
观察组 42 15.3 ± 2.1 15.1 ± 1.9 14.2 ± 1.8 7.5 ± 0.8 7.1 ± 0.6 6.9 ± 0.4
对照组 42 15.2 ± 2.0 14.2 ± 1.8 14.0 ± 1.3 7.4 ± 0.7 6.8 ± 0.7 6.4 ± 0.5
t值 ? 0.022 2.091 2.608 0.062 2.392 5.748
P值 ? 0.982 0.039 0.010 0.950 0.019 0.000
表4 拔牙后引导骨组织再生位点保存患者美学评分对比（分， ± s）
组别 例数 PES WES
修复后即刻 修复后3个月 修复后6个月 修复后即刻 修复后3个月 修复后6个月
观察组 42 10.5 ± 3.7 12.4 ± 4.0 12.9 ± 4.2 7.7 ± 0.6 9.1 ± 1.0 9.5 ± 1.1
对照组 42 10.4 ± 3.5 10.5 ± 2.0 12.5 ± 3.7 7.7 ± 0.5 8.1 ± 0.7 9.2 ± 0.9
t值 ? 0.142 2.644 0.617 0.261 5.176 1.318
P值 ? 0.887 0.009 0.538 0.794 0.000 0.191
图2 观察组典型病例引导骨组织再生（GBR）位点保存术前后影像资料　A：位点保存术前；B：位点保存术后1个月；C：位点保存术后6个月
图3 对照组典型病例引导骨组织再生（GBR）位点保存术前后影像资料　A：位点保存术前；B：位点保存术后1个月；C：位点保存术后6个月
[1]
王彦梅，邹多宏，何家才.下颌无牙颌微创骨劈开引导骨组织再生并同期牙种植临床应用[J].口腔颌面外科杂志，2017，27(4): 257-262. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2017.04.006.
[2]
李晖宇，任延秀，邹红，等.引导骨再生膜技术对种植体成骨生长及骨性结合影响的临床研究[J].中国医学装备，2018，15(9): 82-85. DOI: 10.3969/J.ISSN.1672-8270.2018.09.022.
[3]
张鹏飞，孙福星，范亚伟. PRF复合GBR技术在牙槽嵴位点保存中的应用研究[J].中国口腔种植学杂志，2017，22(3): 112-117.
[4]
郭晨晨，林燕，占适龙，等.拔牙位点保存的研究现状[J].口腔颌面外科杂志，2015，25(2): 154-158. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2015.02.22.
[5]
Kim Y, Leem DH. Post traumatic immediate GBR：alveolar ridge preservation after a comminuted fracture of the anterior maxilla[J]. Dent Traumatol，2015，31(2): 156-159. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12144.
[6]
龙杨，赵睿，付小明.海奥口腔修复膜在种植中屏障膜引导骨再生临床效果分析[J].山西医药杂志，2017，46(19): 2331-2333. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9926.2017.19.018.
[7]
胡敏毅.口腔修复膜材料在牙种植中引导骨再生的效果[J].全科口腔医学电子杂志，2017，4(4): 31-34. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-7882.2017.04.019.
[8]
李凯，马锴，王金龄.富血小板纤维蛋白结合引导骨组织再生在拔牙位点保存术中的应用[J].东南国防医药，2018，20(3): 263-266. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2018.03.010.
[9]
Aktas A, Ozer T, Sen M, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of platelet-rich fibrin and ankaferd blood stopper-loaded platelet-rich fibrin[J]. Niger J Clin Pract，2018，21(9): 1087-1092. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_370_17.
[10]
周菁，孙晓琳，齐曼霖，等.富血小板纤维蛋白在后牙即刻种植中的应用1例[J].口腔医学研究，2018，34(1): 92-93. DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.01.023.
[11]
汪俊兰，刘茜，夏烨鹏，等.富血小板纤维蛋白膜对延迟再植牙牙周愈合影响的实验研究[J].口腔生物医学，2017，8(2): 95-99. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8603.2017.02.009.
[12]
郑志平，毛小泉.富血小板纤维蛋白及其在拔牙位点保存中的作用研究进展[J].广西医学，2016，38(11): 1589-1591. DOI: 10.11675/j.issn.0253-4304.2016.11.30.
[13]
蒋思静，荣洁琳，汪新伟，等.自体骨联合富血小板纤维蛋白在修复牙槽嵴裂中的临床应用[J].安徽医科大学学报，2018，53(5): 805-808. DOI: 10.19405/j.cnki.issn1000-1492.2018.05.031.
[14]
李淑慧，戴晓玮，张文丽，等.自体骨髓间充质干细胞复合富血小板纤维蛋白促进拔牙窝骨愈合[J].中国组织工程研究，2016，20(1): 3-7. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2016.01.001.
[15]
段子文，马玉，王冰杰，等.拔牙位点保存后与同期引导骨再生术种植红色美学效果临床比较[J].中国实用口腔科杂志，2018，11(5): 304-307. DOI: 10.19538/j.kq.2018.05.010.
[16]
Ahila E, Saravana Kumar R, Reddy VK, et al. Augmentation of interdental papilla with platelet-rich fibrin[J]. Contemp Clin Dent，2018，9(2): 213-217. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_812_17.
[17]
段子文，马玉，王冰杰，等.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[J].口腔医学研究，2018，34(2): 176-180. DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.02.017.
[18]
柳锋，雷志敏. PRF联合珊瑚骨粉在前牙美学区拔牙位点保存的临床研究[J].西南国防医药，2016，26(6): 643-646. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-0188.2016.06.022.
[19]
冯靖，宋砚斌，蒋锋，等. PRF联合钛网在前牙美学区牙种植中应用的临床研究[J].口腔医学，2018，38(11): 999-1002. DOI: 10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2018.11.010.
[20]
李一鸣，尼加提·吐尔逊，周晶，等.骨诱导活性材料复合富血小板纤维蛋白在拔牙位点保存中的作用[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志，2015，29(3): 235-237. DOI: 10.13507/j.issn.1674-3474.2015.03.010.
[1] 周子慧, 李恭驰, 李炳辉, 王知, 刘慧真, 王卉, 邹利军. 细胞自噬在创面愈合中作用的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 542-546.
[2] 陈继秋, 朱世辉. 皮肤牵张装置的临床应用现状[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(05): 451-453.
[3] 中国老年医学学会烧创伤分会, 中国生物材料学会烧创伤创面修复材料分会. 中国糖尿病足截肢(趾)治疗专家共识(2022年版)[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(01): 1-9.
[4] 刘甜甜, 李明, 朱含汀, 倪涛, 彭银波, 方勇. 创缘铁过载的临床样本验证与铁过载对小鼠创面愈合的影响[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(06): 475-481.
[5] 黄晓罡, 牛东升, 闫香果, 张克松, 何军民, 王晓军, 刘媛媛. 局部应用重组人Ⅲ型胶原蛋白水凝胶对糖尿病患者创面愈合的影响[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(05): 430-434.
[6] 张苗苗, 付倩倩, 赵雅玫, 余小平, 周军利. 慢性创面伴自身免疫性疾病的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(05): 445-449.
[7] 王春立, 刘泽云, 闫冰, Emilio Galea. 脂质水胶体技术促进伤口愈合的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(05): 454-456.
[8] 蔡红升, 李炳辉, 沈谦, 杨文波, 陈妍雯, 李恭驰. 湖北省某创面修复中心慢性难愈合创面住院患者的流行病学调查分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(04): 283-291.
[9] 刘慧真, 李恭驰, 杜烨, 王卉, 李炳辉. 糖尿病足的诊断及治疗进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(04): 349-353.
[10] 彭毛东智, 李毅, 王洪瑾, 杨文静. 现代敷料促进创面愈合的研究进展[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(04): 354-358.
[11] 张丕红, 彭映华. 2022年闭合切口负压治疗用于切口和周围软组织管理的专家共识解读[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(03): 185-190.
[12] 韩飞, 张万福, 胡晓龙, 佟琳, 官浩. 脱细胞异体真皮联合自体刃厚皮修复大面积烧伤后关节部位瘢痕挛缩[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(03): 221-226.
[13] 何平, 张琦, 薛江涛, 张建超. 糜蛋白酶结合亲水纤维敷料换药促进慢性创面愈合的回顾性研究[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(03): 233-236.
[14] 韩焱福, 陶然, 杜雪梅. 手术切除+局部推进皮瓣修复术后慢性难愈性切口的临床观察[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(03): 237-241.
[15] 盖晨阳, 张庆富. 负压封闭引流技术在创面治疗中的应用[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(03): 265-268.
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