两种支抗种植体连接方式的比较  

The Differences between Two Connecting Methods of Anchor Implant

作　　者：米君国[1] 卢军[2] 吴丽萍[3] 

机构地区：[1]同济大学附属同济医院口腔科,上海200065 [2]海军411医院口腔专科中心,上海200085 [3]同济大学附属口腔医院正畸科,上海200072

出　　处：《同济大学学报（医学版）》2005年第2期29-31,34,共4页Journal of Tongji University(Medical Science)

摘　　要：目的　比较支抗种植体连接在上颌第二双尖牙和连接在上颌第一恒磨牙两种连接方式加强磨牙支抗能力的差异。方法　利用建成的腭部种植支抗的三维有限元模型,分别在支抗种植体连接在上颌第二双尖牙、连接在上颌第一恒磨牙两种连接方式下,计算出上颌第一恒磨牙各方向的位移、种植体的位移以及种植体骨界面的应力,并进行统计分析。结果　种植体连接在第一恒磨牙上更有利于控制支抗牙近中移动和垂直伸长;连接在第二双尖牙上对第一恒磨牙的腭向移动控制更好。两种连接方式下,支抗种植体均显示出良好的稳定性。结论　就保护磨牙支抗来说,种植体连接在上颌第一恒磨牙较之连接在上颌第二双尖牙更加合适。Objective To compare the differences between tw o connecting methods of the implant, i.e. connecting with the maxillary second b icuspid or with the first permanent molar.Methods To calculate and analyze the displacements of the first permanent molar,the displacements of the implant and the stress between i mplant-bone interface with two connecting methods.Results The palatal implant connecting with the first per manent molar significantly reduced mesial movement and protrusive displacements of anchor teeth while the implant connecting with the maxillary second bicuspid was in favor of the control on the movement of the first permanent molar towards the medium of the palate.The anchor implant showed good stability in two situat ions. Conclusion With respect to the protection of the anchorag e of molar,it is more suitable for the palatal implant to connect with the first permanent molar than with the maxillary second bicuspid.

关 键 词：螺旋CT 种植体 支抗 有限元法 应力分析 位移 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]