不同尺寸微种植体支抗系统的临床应用比较  

Comparative evaluation of two kinds of micro-implant system with different size

作　　者：王震东[1] 李青奕[1] 王林[1] 顾永佳 

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学口腔医学研究所正畸科,江苏南京210029 [2]南通市口腔医院正畸科,江苏南通226001

出　　处：《华西口腔医学杂志》2009年第2期150-153,共4页West China Journal of Stomatology

基　　金：江苏省卫生厅医学科技发展基金资助项目(z200313);江苏省社会发展计划资助项目(BS2004551)

摘　　要：目的比较2种不同尺寸的微种植体支抗系统的临床应用情况,探讨影响微种植体临床成功率的因素。方法选择直径1.2mm、长度7mm的微种植体支抗(MIA)系统和直径2mm、长度8mm的自攻钛种植体支抗(SDIA)系统为研究对象。38例患者采用MIA系统,共植入微种植体77枚;28例患者采用SDIA系统,共植入微种植体53枚。分析微种植体在治疗过程中的脱落情况,微种植体周围牙龈情况及牙齿移动情况。结果1)MIA系统植入后有6枚脱落,SDIA系统有7枚脱落,二者脱落率的差异无统计学意义(P=0.378);重新植入后均未再次脱落。2)MIA系统的植入部位牙龈无明显红肿,SDIA系统中有12枚出现植入部位的牙龈红肿症状。3)在微种植体保持稳定的情况下,MIA和SDIA系统都能够有效、持续地移动牙齿。结论临床应用时,微种植体应避免靠近邻牙牙根,微种植体头部应尽量小,植入部位尽可能位于附着龈区域,同时要保持微种植体周围清洁。Objective To offer some reference for micro-implant＇s development and population by analyzing clinical application of two kinds of micro-implant systems. Methods 38 patients treated with MIA （micro-implant anchorage） and 28 patients treated with SDIA （self-driven titanium implant for orthodontic anchorage） were included. Analyzing the rate of lost implants, the gum＇s reactivity and the efficiency of moving teeth summarized the excellences and shortcomings of two systems. Results 1）Six of MIA implants fell off after being inserted. Seven of SDIA implants lost when they had been implanted for a month. But they were stable after being inserted again. 2）The gum around 12 SDIA implants got inflammation symptom, but the gum around MIA implants was normal. 3）Both MIA implants and SDIA implants could move teeth effectively and persistently when they were stable. Conclusion When we apply micro-implant in clinic, we, should prevent it from closing roots of teeth and choose the small tip micro-implant. The embedded position should be in area of attachment gum. At the same time, the areas around the tip of micro-implant should be keeping clean.

关 键 词：微种植体 支抗 临床应用 

分 类 号：R783.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]