首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants >Stud vs Bar Attachments for Maxillary Four-Implant-Supported Overdentures: 3-to 9-year Results from a Retrospective Study
【24h】

Stud vs Bar Attachments for Maxillary Four-Implant-Supported Overdentures: 3-to 9-year Results from a Retrospective Study

机译:螺柱VS条附件用于上颌四植入式过度的过度:回顾性研究的3至9年结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud or bar attachments for patients with an edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods: From January 2008 to December 2014, patients with maxillary edentulism were enrolled in this retrospective study. The insertion of four maxillary dental implants was followed by restoration with either stud-retained or bar-retained overdentures. The characteristics of the subjects and implants were recorded. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, pert-implant clinical parameters, prosthetic maintenance efforts, and patient satisfaction score were evaluated at the last follow-up time. The data were statistically analyzed, and the level of significance was set at alpha = .05. Results: A total of 132 implants were placed in 33 patients, of whom 18 were restored with four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud attachments, and the other 15 with four-implant-supported overdentures retained by bar attachments. Thirty-one patients and 124 implants were available for the entire follow-up. During a mean follow-up period of 77 months (range: 36 to 111 months), five among 72 implants failed for three patients in the stud-retained group and two among 60 implants failed for two patients in the bar-retained group, resulting in estimated cumulative implant survival rates of 81.4% and 86.2% for the stud-retained group and the bar-retained group, respectively. Except for the modified Plaque Index (P = .035), no significant differences were indicated between the two attachment groups in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, pert-implant clinical parameters, or prosthetic maintenance treatment. Pert/inter-implant gingival hyperplasia occurred only with implants under bar attachments. Patients in both groups reported a high degree of satisfaction. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, no significant differences were indicated between the clinical outcomes of maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures with either stud or bar attachments, although a higher modified Plaque Index was observed for the bar-retained group. Furthermore, prostheses with stud attachments were advantageous for their convenient cleaning and repair.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较由螺柱或条形附件保留的四个植入物支持的过度的临床结果,用于患有薄型上颌的患者。材料和方法:从2008年1月到2014年12月,颌骨前列腺系的患者参加了这项回顾性研究。用螺柱保留或杆保留覆盖的恢复后,恢复剩余的四个上颌牙科植入物。记录受试者和植入物的特征。植入物存活率,边际骨质损失,植物植入临床参数,在最后一次随访时间评估了假体维护努力和患者满意度评分。数据进行统计分析,并且在alpha = .05处设定了显着性水平。结果:33例患者共132名植入物,其中18名恢复,用螺柱附件保留的四个植入物支撑的覆盖物,另一个15个植入物,其他15个植入物由条形附件保留的四个植入物支撑的过度滞留。三十一名患者和124名植入物可用于整个后续随访。在77个月的平均随访期(范围:36至111个月)期间,在72名植入物中有五名患者在螺柱保留的组中失效,两名植入物中的两名患者在酒吧保留的群体中失效,所产生的两名患者估计累积植入物存活率分别为81.4%和86.2%,分别为螺柱保留的基团和条形保留基团。除了修饰的斑块指数(P = .035)外,在植入物存活率,边缘骨质损失,植物植入临床参数或假体维持治疗方面没有在两个附着组之间表明显着差异。 Pert /植入间牙龈增生仅发生在条形附件下的植入物。两组患者报告了高度满意度。结论:在本研究的局限内,在具有螺柱或条形附件的上颌四植入的覆盖的临床结果之间没有显着差异,尽管对于杆保留的基团观察到更高的修饰的斑块指数。此外,具有螺柱附件的假体对于他们方便的清洁和修复是有利的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号