s Objective: To compare and observe the absorption difference of implant marginal alveolar bone between two methods of operation of open implanted and embedding implant. Methods: 380 cases of patients with dental implant surgery were selected as the study objects, according to different implant methods, the patients were divided into open group 205 cases (250 teeth) and 175 cases of (205 teeth), embedding group was used the embedding type to implant denture, the open group was used open type implant denture, after implant placement of three months, six months, nine months, twelve months, the absorption of alveolar bone of the implant edge was reviewed and compared. Results:All the patients of two groups had no removed denture who were followed up for 1 year after surgery, there were no obvious adverse reactions after implantation, and there were no loose denture, they had a good occlusion relationship, the alveolar bone absorption of implant of three months, six months, nine months, twelve months after surgery were given statistical dealing, the difference had no significance (P >0.05). Conclusion: Patients with good bone conditions, adequate tooth loss or deletion are used open implanted and embedding implant, which has a little difference to implant marginal alveolar bone absorption, but the open type of implant saves the cost of the two stage operation of patients, reduce patient suffering, and shorten the repair time.%目的：对比观察开放式植入与包埋植入两种手术方法的种植体边缘牙槽骨吸收情况差异。方法：选取牙种植术患者380例为研究对象，根据种植体植入方法不同，将患者分为开放组205例（250枚）和包埋组175例（205枚），包埋组采用包埋式植入种植体，开放组采用开放式植入种植体，种植体植入后3个月、6个月、9个月、12个月复查对比种植体边缘牙槽骨吸收情况。结果：两组患者术后随访1年内均无去除义齿，植入后无明显不良反应，无义齿松动，咬合关系良好，在术后3个月、6个月、9个月、12个月种植体边缘牙槽骨吸收情况经过统计学处理，差异无显著性意义（P＞0.05）。结论：对骨质条件良好、骨量充足的牙列缺损或缺失患者采用开放式种植体植入与包埋式植入手术对种植体边缘牙槽骨吸收影响差异较小，但开放式植入节省了患者二期手术费用，减少患者痛苦，缩短了修复所需时间。
展开▼
