不同方法进行种周炎骨重建的对比研究  

Comparative study of bone reconstruction using different methods for bone defects caused by peri-implantitis

作　　者：尹伟[1] 刘向辉[1] 孙卫革[1] 程义成[1] 张磊[1] 王晨辰[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽医科大学解放军八一临床学院口腔科,南京210002

出　　处：《安徽医科大学学报》2016年第9期1364-1368,共5页Acta Universitatis Medicinalis Anhui

基　　金：2014年度南京军区医学科技创新课题面上项目(编号:14MS045)

摘　　要：将6只比格犬即刻植入36枚种植体后建立种周炎骨缺损模型,后将患有种周炎的种植体随机分组(对照组、传统组、β-TCP组、BIO-GENE组、Bio-Oss组和不刮治组)后进行骨重建,术后3个月通过直观测量、X线检查和Micro-CT扫描比较各自成骨的差异。结果显示骨重建后6组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),骨重建效果Bio-Oss组>BIO-GENE组>β-TCP组(传统组)>对照组(不刮治组);其中β-TCP组与传统组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),不刮治组与对照组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对比发现翻瓣刮治+BioOss+胶原膜可有效进行种周炎骨重建。6 beagles were implanted 36 implants, then to construct the peri-implantitis bone defects model. 36 im-plants with peri-implantitis were randomly divided into control group, traditional group, β-TCP group, BIO-GENE group, Bio-Oss group and non scraping group, then to be reconstructed bone. 3 months after surgery, the differences of osteogenesis were compared by direct measurement, X-ray examination, and Micro-CT scan. The results showed that the bone reconstruction effect was Bio-Oss group 〉 BIO-GENE group 〉 β-TCP group （traditional group） 〉control group （ non scraping group） （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. Among them, there was no statistical difference between β-TCP group and traditional group （ P 〉 0. 05 ）, and the same between non scraping group and control group （P 〉 0. 05 ）.The comparative study finds＂flap curettage ＋ Bio-Oss ＋ collagen membrane＂ can be used for bone reconstruction of peri-implantitis.

关 键 词：种周炎 骨缺损 骨重建 骨再生 

分 类 号：R782.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]