上海交通大学学报（医学版）

上海交通大学学报（医学版） >

2021 , Vol. 41 >Issue 3: 339 - 343

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2021.03.009

论著·临床研究

锥形束CT研究不同基台角度对上颌前牙区牙槽骨改变的影响

  • 袁剑鸣 ,
  • 魏斌 ,
  • 许卫星 ,
  • 张磊
展开
  • 1.上海市黄浦区第二牙病防治所修复科，上海 200020
    2.上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔第一门诊部，上海 200011
    3.上海市黄浦区第二牙病防治所特需门诊，上海 200020
    4.上海市黄浦区第二牙病防治所综合治疗科，上海 200020
袁剑鸣（1983—），男，副主任医师，硕士；电子信箱：yjm_120@163.com。

收稿日期: 2020-05-20

  网络出版日期: 2021-04-06

基金资助

上海市黄浦区科委科技项目基金(HKW201632);上海市黄浦区医疗卫生重点研究发展专科项目基金(HWZFK201810)

收起

CBCT effects of different abutment angles on alveolar bone changes in maxillary anterior teeth

  • Jian-ming YUAN ,
  • Bin WEI ,
  • Wei-xing XU ,
  • Lei ZHANG
Expand
  • 1.Department of Prosthodontics, the Second Stomatological Disease Institution of Huangpu District in Shanghai, Shanghai 200020, China
    2.First Dental Clinic, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, China
    3.VIP Clinic, the Second Stomatological Disease Institution of Huangpu District in Shanghai, Shanghai 200020, China
    4.Department of Synthetics, the Second Stomatological Disease Institution of Huangpu District in Shanghai, Shanghai 200020, China

Received date: 2020-05-20

  Online published: 2021-04-06

Supported by

Science and Technology Project Fund of Shanghai Huangpu District Science and Technology Commission(HKW201632);Foundation for Medical and Health Key Research and Development of Huangpu District in Shanghai(HWZFK201810)

Fold

摘要

目的·比较上颌骨前牙区的种植体在使用不同角度的基台修复后牙槽骨改变情况的影像学差异。方法·选择2017年1月—2018年12月在上海市黄浦区第二牙病防治所接受上颌前牙区种植修复的患者40例，按修复基台角度不同分为2组，每组20例，分别使用0°和25°基台修复。在安装角度基台后的即刻、6个月、12个月、18个月时行锥形束CT（cone beam computed tomography， CBCT）检查，测量2组角度基台在各时期的唇侧牙槽骨厚度和高度的CBCT变化差值，并通过自身对照研究和配对t检验比较组间差异。结果·0°和25°基台组在修复后6个月、12个月和18个月时的CBCT比较显示，2组种植体唇侧牙槽骨厚度和高度的变化差异均无统计学意义。结论·采用CBCT影像检查可以量化分析种植体周围牙槽骨的变化。影像学研究显示上颌前牙区种植修复时选择的基台角度在25°以内时，基台角度对牙槽骨的改变没有显著性影响。

关键词： 锥形束CT; 种植体; 角度基台; 牙槽骨

本文引用格式

袁剑鸣 , 魏斌 , 许卫星 , 张磊 . 锥形束CT研究不同基台角度对上颌前牙区牙槽骨改变的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2021 , 41(3) : 339 -343 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2021.03.009

Abstract

Objective

·To compare the imaging differences of alveolar bone changes after using different angles of abutment implants in the maxillary anterior area.

Methods

·Forty patients of maxillary anterior area implant restoration at the Second Stomatological Disease Institution of Huangpu District in Shanghai from January 2017 to December 2018 were divided into 2 groups according to the different angle of abutment, with 20 cases in each group, which were treated with the 0° and 25° abutment, respectively. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination was performed immediately, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months after angular abutment restoration, and the differences of CBCT changes in the thickness and height of labial alveolar bone between the two groups at different periods was measured by self-control study and paired t test.

Results

·CBCT comparison of 0° and 25° groups at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months after restoration showed no significant difference in the thickness and height of alveolar bone in the two groups.

Conclusion

·Change of alveolar bone around the implant can be quantified by using CBCT image examination. When the base angle of the maxillary anterior tooth area is within 25°, the base angle has no significant effect on the change of alveolar bone.

Key words： cone beam computed tomography (CBCT); implant; angle abutment; alveolar bone

参考文献

1 周艺群, 王慧明, 沈建伟. 中国人上颌前牙区骨质形态的CBCT测量分析[J]. 中国口腔种植学杂志, 2013, 18(2): 118.
2 Chan HL, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Suarez F, et al. Incidence of implant buccal plate fenestration in the esthetic zone: a cone beam computed tomography study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(1): 171-177.
3 赵宝红, 封伟, 薛敏, 等. 不同角度基台的ITI种植系统用于前牙种植修复5年临床效果评价[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2013, 6(7): 408-412.
4 马翔, 柳忠豪. 3557例种植患者种植体周围炎的回顾性研究[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2018, 34(5): 665-669.
5 Lewis SG, Llamas D, Avera S. The UCLA abutment: a four-year review[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 1992, 67(4): 509-515.
6 Cardelli P, Montani M, Gallio M, et al. Angulated abutments and perimplants stress:F.E.M.analysis[J].Oral Implantol (Rome), 2009, 2(1): 3-10.
7 Bahuguna R, Anand B, Kumar D, et al. Evaluation of stress patterns in bone around dental implant for different abutment angulations under axial and oblique loading: a finite element analysis[J]. Natl J Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 4(1): 46-51.
8 王文君, 马敏. CBCT技术研究前牙区骨劈开术种植修复的骨吸收特点[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2015, 31(5): 497-499.
9 封伟, 薛敏, 耿进友, 等. 锥形束CT辅助美学区种植评价唇侧骨量的应用研究[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(4): 313-317.
10 Eger DE, Gunsolley JC, Feldman S. Comparison of angled and standard abutments and their effect on clinical outcomes: a preliminary report[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2000, 15(6): 819-823.
11 Sethi A, Kaus T, Sochor P, et al. Evolution of the concept of angulated abutments in implant dentistry: 14-year clinical data[J]. Implant Dent, 2002, 11(1): 41-51.
12 封伟, 耿进友, 孙圆圆, 等. 角度基台修复后牙种植义齿的短期评价[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2014, 18(7): 1021-1026.
13 刘世员. 不同角度基台Straumann种植系统行前牙种植修复的疗效及并发症分析[J]. 中国口腔种植学杂志, 2017, 22(1): 36-39.
14 Martini AP, Freitas AC Jr, Rocha EP, et al. Straight and angulated abutments in platform switching: influence of loading on bone stress by three-dimensional finite element analysis[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2012, 23(2): 415-418.
15 韩丽会, 邱晓霞, 邢旭娜, 等. 上颌前牙区种植方案中角度设计的三维有限元分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(2): 157-163.
16 Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Almeida DA, et al. Finite element analysis on influence of implant surface treatments, connection and bone types[J]. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2016, 63: 292-300.
17 Wang K, Geng JP, Jones D, et al. Comparison of the fracture resistance of dental implants with different abutment taper angles[J]. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2016, 63: 164-171.
18 杜良智, 许哲, 石平, 等. 上前牙区小直径种植体连接不同角度基台有限元分析[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2016, 32(4): 526-531.
19 Geramizadeh M, Katoozian H, Amid R, et al. Static, dynamic, and fatigue finite element analysis of dental implants with different thread designs[J]. J Long Term Eff Med Implants, 2016, 26(4): 347-355.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉