角度螺丝通道基台一体冠在美学区种植修复中的短期临床效果研究

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2021.06.014

华西口腔医学杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 712-717.doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2021.06.014

角度螺丝通道基台一体冠在美学区种植修复中的短期临床效果研究

王彦梅(), 刘鑫, 何家才()

安徽医科大学口腔医学院，安徽医科大学附属口腔医院种植中心，安徽省口腔疾病研究中心实验室，合肥 230032

收稿日期:2020-11-11 修回日期:2021-06-20 出版日期:2021-12-01 发布日期:2021-12-03
通讯作者: 何家才 E-mail:WangYanmei2008_good@126.com;hejiacai@163.com
作者简介:王彦梅，主治医师，硕士，E-mail：WangYanmei2008_good@126.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(81771117)

Clinical application of integrated angulated screw channel abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of aesthetic area

Wang Yanmei(), Liu Xin, He Jiacai()

Dept. of Oral Implantology, College & Hospital of Stomatology, Anhui Medical University, Key Lab. of Oral Diseases Research of Anhui Province, Hefei 230032, China

Received:2020-11-11 Revised:2021-06-20 Online:2021-12-01 Published:2021-12-03
Contact: He Jiacai E-mail:WangYanmei2008_good@126.com;hejiacai@163.com
Supported by:
The National Natural Science Foundation of China(81771117)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的

探讨美学区应用角度螺丝通道（ASC）基台一体冠进行种植修复的临床效果。

方法

采用ASC基台一体冠对16例患者行美学区种植修复，术后随访1年，对种植体存留率、美学效果、种植体边缘骨吸收、患者满意度进行评估。

结果

ASC基台一体冠修复美学区牙齿缺失种植体存留率为100%；红色美学分值和白色美学分值平均分分别为 9.5分和9.4 分；种植体近远中边缘骨吸收量分别为（0.439±0.123）mm和（0.341±0.118）mm；VAS满意度平均得分为8.9分，所有患者对种植修复效果均满意。

结论

使用ASC 基台一体冠行美学区种植修复是一种较理想的设计方案，具有一定的临床应用价值。

关键词: 美学修复, 螺丝固位, 角度螺丝通道基台

Abstract: Objective

To evaluate the clinical effect of integrated angulated screw channel (ASC) abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of the aesthetic area.

Methods

Sixteen patients who received single implant-supported rehabilitation using integrated ASC abutment crown in the aesthetic area were included in the study. After one-year follow-up, the cumulative survival rate, aesthetic effectiveness, bone resorption around implants, and patient satisfaction were analyzed through periapical film, clinical examination, and the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The implant cumulative survival rate of the integrated ASC abutment crown in the implant-supported rehabilitation of the aesthetic area was 100%. The average pink esthetic index scores reached 9.5, and the white esthetic index scores reached 9.4. The mean marginal bone loss of implants was (0.439±0.123) mm at the mesial side and (0.341±0.118) mm at the distal side. The average VAS satisfaction score was 8.9, which showed that all patients were satisfied with the final restorative effect.

Conclusion

Using integrated ASC abutment crown for implant restoration is an ideal implant restoration design in the aesthetic zone and can be applied clinically.

Key words: aesthetic restoration, screw-retained fixation, angulated screw channel abutment

中图分类号:

R 783.4

王彦梅, 刘鑫, 何家才. 角度螺丝通道基台一体冠在美学区种植修复中的短期临床效果研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2021, 39(6): 712-717.

Wang Yanmei, Liu Xin, He Jiacai. Clinical application of integrated angulated screw channel abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of aesthetic area[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2021, 39(6): 712-717.

图/表 8

表 1

图 1

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

图 6

图 7

参考文献 18

1	Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, et al. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(): 163-201.
2	Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2015, 30(1): 110-124.
3	Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: a Meta-analysis[J]. J Dent, 2015, 43(2): 149-170.
4	Berroeta E, Zabalegui I, Donovan T, et al. Dynamic a-butment: a method of redirecting screw access for implant-supported restorations: technical details and a clinical report[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2015, 113(6): 516-519.
5	Garcia-Gazaui S, Razzoog M, Sierraalta M, et al. Fabrication of a screw-retained restoration avoiding the facial access hole: a clinical report[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2015, 114(5): 621-624.
6	Kan JY, Roe P, Rungcharassaeng K, et al. Classification of sagittal root position in relation to the anterior maxillary osseous housing for immediate implant placement: a cone beam computed tomography study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2011, 26(4): 873-876.
7	Wheeler SL, Holmes RE, Calhoun CJ. Six-year clinical and histologic study of sinus-lift grafts[J]. Int J Oral Ma-xillofac Implants, 1996, 11(1): 26-34.
8	Belser UC, Grütter 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 Perio-dontol, 2009, 80(1): 140-151.
9	Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, et al. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014, 25(10): 1113-1118.
10	Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2003, 18(5): 719-728.
11	Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study[J]. J Periodontol, 2009, 80(9): 1388-1392.
12	Wadhwani C, Rapoport D, La Rosa S, et al. Radiogra-phic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2012, 107(3): 151-157.
13	Ma S, Fenton A. Screw-versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2015, 28(2): 127-145.
14	Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, et al. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2017, 73(1): 141-151.
15	宿玉成. 口腔种植学[M]. 2版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2014: 261-265.
	Su YC. Implant dentistry[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2014: 261-265.
16	赵佳明, 刘光源, 曲哲, 等. 美学区应用角度螺丝通道基台的临床效果评价[J]. 口腔生物医学, 2018, 9(2): 82-86.
	Zhao JM, Liu GY, Qu Z, et al. Evaluation of clinical effect of angulated screw channel abutment in aesthetic area[J]. Oral Biomed, 2018, 9(2): 82-86.
17	Sakamoto S, Ro M, Al-Ardah A, et al. Esthetic abutment design for angulated screw channels: a technical report[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 119(6): 912-915.
18	Greer AC, Hoyle PJ, Vere JW, et al. Mechanical complications associated with angled screw channel restorations[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2017, 30(3): 258-259.

患者编号	性别	牙龈生物型	牙槽骨分类	牙长轴与骨长轴夹角/°
1	女	中厚	Ⅰ	15.6
2	男	厚	Ⅱ	17.8
3	女	薄	Ⅰ	21.2
4	男	厚	Ⅲ	9.7
5	男	厚	Ⅰ	22.1
6	男	薄	Ⅰ	23.4
7	女	厚	Ⅲ	10.5
8	女	中厚	Ⅱ	14.6
9	男	厚	Ⅱ	19.8
10	女	中厚	Ⅰ	16.7
11	男	厚	Ⅰ	15.2
12	男	薄	Ⅱ	18.9
13	女	薄	Ⅰ	22.2
14	男	厚	Ⅲ	7.8
15	女	薄	Ⅰ	23.1
16	男	厚	Ⅰ	21.5

[1]	于海洋, 岳莉, 刘伟才, 刘峰, 牛丽娜, 邵龙泉, 廖红兵, 骆小平, 李鸿波, 江青松, 于皓, 赵彬, 吴哲, 李长义, 吴国锋, 王焱, 牟雁东, 刘云松, 张海洋, 陈吉华, 刘洪臣. 瓷美学修复中预备体边缘与修复体边缘的专家共识[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2022, 40(2): 123-133.
[2]	姚金凤, 邓梦昭, 谢添, 陈瞰, 王秋旭, 梁志刚. 口腔数字化设计在唇腭裂患者前牙美学修复中的应用研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2021, 39(5): 582-590.
[3]	楼雨欣, 任薇, 董博, 杨兴强, 赵蕾, 鲁雨晴, 甘雪琦, 岳莉. 聚合瓷遮色铸造桩在前牙美学修复中应用1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2021, 39(1): 115-120.
[4]	罗天, 李俊颖, 于海洋. 制备高精度牙预备体肩台的临床路径和预备方法[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2020, 38(6): 712-717.
[5]	于海洋,赵雨薇,李俊颖,罗天,高静,刘洪臣,刘伟才,刘峰,赵克,Fei Liu,马楚凡,JuergenManfred Setz,梁珊珊,范琳,高姗姗,朱卓立,沈颉飞,王剑,朱智敏,周学东. 基于牙体牙髓、牙周及功能健康的显微微创牙体预备[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2019, 37(3): 229-235.
[6]	张倩倩,陈昕,赵雨薇,刘春煦,罗天,董博,于海洋. 3D打印在口腔美学修复中的应用[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2018, 36(6): 656-661.
[7]	陈端婧,李怡源,李俊颖,罗天,栗智,于海洋. 一种显微精准定深孔牙体预备技术[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2016, 34(3): 325-327.
[8]	骆小平钱冬冬袁宇孟翔峰. 前牙全瓷美学修复中值得注意的事项[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2013, 31(2): 113-117.
[9]	赵奇吴艳. 光固化树脂分层充填技术的应用现状[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2012, 30(4): 335-337.
[10]	季骏骆小平陆苇石玉娟邬烈舒成军. 前牙冠折至龈下快速牵引后美学修复1例报道[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2007, 25(02): 206-207.

角度螺丝通道基台一体冠在美学区种植修复中的短期临床效果研究

Clinical application of integrated angulated screw channel abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of aesthetic area

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 18

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价