Comparative study of two types of attachments for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture
Comparative study of two types of attachments for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture
复制标题
下颌种植体固位单颗全口覆盖义齿两种附着体的比较研究
DOI：
10.4103/1687-8574.191434
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Zeinb Abd Eaal
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maha Abo Shady;I. Eltorky;Zeinb Abd Eaal
目的：本研究的目的是比较下颌种植体固位覆盖义齿的球形附着体系统和定位器附着体系统的临床和放射学评价。材料和方法：选择14例下颌无牙列患者，年龄55~65岁。将患者分为两组。I组采用双种植体支承单颗下颌全口覆盖义齿，采用球形附着体固位。第二组采用双种植体固定固定的下颌全口覆盖义齿。评估按常规预约进行，最长可达1年，从植入时起算。每个患者都被提供了一份关于保持能力、稳定性、舒适性、咀嚼能力、美观和言语的调查问卷。临床上，对患者的牙龈退缩、牙袋深度和种植体稳定性进行评估。对患者进行放射学检查，以确定边缘骨丢失量。结果：所有固定物在随访期内均成功骨性结合。两组患者满意度比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.827)。在整个观察期间，两组患者的牙龈退缩均有轻微增加，但两组间无显著差异(P=0.166)。两组种植体周围的探诊深度均无明显增加(P=0.600)。在随访期内，两组种植体稳定性均无明显提高(P=0.839)。在随访期内，两组患者的骨量无显著差异(P=0.524.0 5和P=0.0 5)。结论：两种种植体足以保持单个下颌覆盖义齿与上颌自然牙列相对，不会对种植体造成不良影响。
Objective: The aim of this work is to compare between balls versus locator attachment systems for mandibular implant-retained single complete overdenture, as regards to clinical and radiographic evaluation. Materials and methods: Fourteen patients had lower edentulous jaw opposing almost natural dentition in the upper jaw was selected with their age ranging from 55 to 65 years. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I received single mandibular complete overdenture constructed over two implants, retained by ball attachments. Group II received single mandibular complete overdenture constructed over two implants, retained by locator attachments. Evaluation was carried out at regular appointments up to 1 year from time of loading of the implants. Each patient was presented to a questionnaire regarding retention, stability, comfort, chewing ability, esthetics, and speech. Clinically, the patients were evaluated as regards to gingival recession, pocket depth and implant stability. Radiographically, the patients were examined to determine the amount of marginal bone loss. Results: All fixtures were successfully osseointegrated all over the follow-up period. The results showed no significant difference in patient satisfaction between both groups (P = 0.827). Slight increase in the gingival recession was found in both groups throughout the time of observations, with no significant difference between both groups (P = 0.166). There was insignificant increased of the probing depth around the implants in both groups (P = 0.600). There was insignificant increase in implant stability in both groups throughout the follow-up periods (P = 0.839). No significant differences in bone loss were observed between both groups throughout the follow-up periods (P = 0.524 and <0.05). Conclusion: Two implants were sufficient to retain a single mandibular complete overdenture opposing maxillary natural dentition without hazardous effect on the implants.