引导骨再生膜技术在种植义齿美学修复中的临床分析

摘要

目的:探究引导骨再生膜技术在重度牙周病患者种植义齿美学修复中的临床效果,为重度牙周病患者的临床治疗提供参考.方法:回顾性分析笔者医院2015年8月-2017年8月收治的重度牙周病且需要拔牙的36例患者病例资料,按其治疗方式的不同分为观察组(n=19)和对照组(n=17).对照组患者拔牙时保存位点,6个月后种植,种植骨量不足时同期行GBR;对照组患者拔牙时不保存位点,3个月后种植,骨量充足不需行GBR,分析患者治疗效果以及红白色美学评分.结果:观察组患者在二期手术前,可见膜下有新骨形成,所形成的新骨已与种植体形成紧密的骨性结合.观察组修复后红色美学差异明显高于对照组,两组比较具有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后6个月以及术后1年白色美学评分与对照组比较无明显差别,但在术后2年白色美学评分明显高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组不良反应发生率为5.26％,明显低于对照组(29.4％),两组差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组患者总满意率为94.74％,明显高于对照组(82.35％),两组差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:引导骨膜再生技术在种植义齿美学修复中能够有效解决患者牙槽突骨量不足的问题,并且能够满足患者治疗中种植美学的要求,值得在临床推广应用.%Objective To explore the clinical effect of guided periosteal regeneration technology in aesthetic restoration of implant denture in patients with severe periodontal disease, so as to provide a reference for clinical treatment of severe periodontal disease. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the treatment of severe periodontal disease between August 2015 and August 2017 in our hospital and the diagnosis and treatment of 36 patients with tooth extraction. The patients were divided into observation groups according to different treatment methods (n=19) and In the control group (n=17), patients in the control group were preserved at the time of tooth extraction and planted after 6 months. GBR was performed in the same period when the bone was insufficient. The control group did not preserve the site during tooth extraction. After 3 months of cultivation, the bone mass was adequate. GBR was required to analyze the patient's treatment and red-white aesthetic score. Results In the observation group, there was new bone formation under the membrane before the second stage of surgery. The new bone formed had formed a tight bone bond with the implant. The difference in red aesthetics between the observation group and the control group was significantly higher than that of the control group. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). The white aesthetic scores of the observation group at the 6th month after surgery and the 1st year after surgery were similar to those of the control group. Significant difference, but the white aesthetic score was significantly higher in the 2 years after surgery than in the control group. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group after treatment was 5.26％, which was significantly lower than that of the control group. (29.4％), the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The total satisfaction rate of the observation group after treatment was 94.74％, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (82.35％). There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups(P<0.05).Conclusion Guided periosteal regeneration technology can effectively solve the problem of alveolar bone deficiency in the treatment of patients, and can meet the requirements of Implant Aesthetics in the treatment of patients. It is worth promoting widely in clinical treatment.