不同材料修复种植牙骨缺损临床对比研究  

Comparison of different dental implant bone repair materials to repair bone defect

作　　者：吴茫茫 刘党利 

机构地区：[1]郑州市口腔医院修复科,郑州450000

出　　处：《医药论坛杂志》2017年第4期36-37,40,共3页Journal of Medical Forum

摘　　要：目的分析不同骨修复材料修复种植牙骨缺损的临床疗效。方法选择180例牙骨缺损患者,随机分为对照组(90例)与观察组(90例),对照组采用Bio-oss骨粉治疗,观察组采用新型骨修复材料治疗,治疗后6个月对患者同一骨缺损部位行CT检查,比较两组骨密度,并计算骨体积转化有效率。结果经治疗,对照组骨体积转化率为(80.47±22.46)%,明显低于观察组(87.24±20.58)%(P<0.05);对照组有效转化率为83.75%,与观察组的84.41%比较无显著差异(P>0.05);两组骨厚度及植骨厚度比较差异无显著差异(P>0.05);两组不良情况比较无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论新型骨修复材料与Bio-oss骨粉用于牙种植骨缺损均有较好的填充效果,且无较大不良反应,临床可考虑采用新型骨修复材料作为骨移植修复材料。Objective To analyze the clinical curative effect of different dental implant bone repair materials to repair bone defect. Methods Chose 180 patients with dental bone defects, were randomly divided into control group （90 cases） and observation group （90 cases） and control group in the Bio - oss bone treatment, observation group treated with new bone repair materials, 6 months after treatment for patients with the same bone defect position row CT examina- tion, compared two groups of bone mineral density, and calculate the bone volume conversion efficiency. Results After treatment, the control group of bone volume conversion rate （80. 47 -＋ 22. 46） %, significantly lower than the observa- tion group （87. 24 -＋ 20. 58） % （P 〈 0. 05 ）; Control group effective conversion rate was 83.75%, compared with 84.41% of the observation group had no significant difference （ P 〉 0.05 ） ; The bone thickness and thickness of the bone graft is similar between the two groups had no significant difference （ P 〉 0. 05 ） ; Two groups of adverse situation is no significant difference （ P 〉 0. 05）. Conclusion The new bone repair materials and Bio - oss bone bone powder for dental implants bone defect were good filling effect, and no adverse reactions, larger clinical may consider using new bone repair materials as bone graft to repair material.

关 键 词：骨修复材料 牙骨缺损 种植牙 临床疗效 

分 类 号：R783.4[医药卫生—口腔医学]