黏膜支持式导板和牙支持式导板的应用对美学区前牙种植精准度及美学效果的影响  

Influence of the application of mucosa supported guide plate and tooth supported guide plate on the accuracy andaesthetic effect of anterior dental implantation in the aesthetic area

作　　者：栗聪聪 王桂圆 杨现鹤 LI Cong-cong;WANG Gui-yuan;YANG Xian-he(Nanyang Central Hospital,Henan Province,473000,China)

机构地区：[1]南阳市中心医院,河南南阳473000

出　　处：《中国医疗美容》2024年第4期88-91,共4页China Medical Cosmetology

摘　　要：目的探讨黏膜支持式导板和牙支持式导板的应用及护理配合对美学区前牙种植精准度和美学效果的影响。方法选取2021年5月至2023年9月在我院接受美学区前牙种植的72例前牙缺损患者为研究对象,随机将其分为A组(36例58牙)和B组(36例49牙),A组运用黏膜支持式导板,B组运用牙支持式导板,实施专业护理配合进行牙种植,种植结束后进行锥形束CT(CBCT)拍摄,提取牙冠顶部、根尖部、牙根深度及角度等相关参数,计算出与种植前偏差值进行两组比较;同时运用红色美学评分(PES)和白色美学评分(WES)对两组美学效果进行评价。结果两组患者均顺利完成美学区前牙种植,A组牙冠顶部偏差、根尖部偏差、牙根深度偏差分别为(0.53±0.18)mm、(0.67±0.21)mm、(0.41±0.13)mm、角度偏差为(2.46±0.73)°,B组牙冠顶部偏差、根尖部偏差、牙根深度偏差分别为(0.41±0.13)mm、(0.45±0.17)mm、(0.32±0.11)mm、角度偏差为(1.97±0.55)°,组间比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访3个月,A、B组WES评分分别为(8.62±1.72)分VS(8.79±1.75)分,差异无统计学意义(t=0.505,P=0.614);A、B组PES评分分别为(9.05±2.26)分VS(8.16±2.17)分,差异有统计学意义(t=2.067,P=0.041)。结论黏膜支持式导板和牙支持式导板对美学区前牙种植均可获得较好效果,牙支持式导板种植精准度优于黏膜支持式导板,美学区红色美学评分黏膜支持式导板优于牙支持式导板;临床应根据患者具体情况选择合适的数字化导板支持,以获得更为精准的种植精度和美学效果。Objective Exploring the application and nursing coordination of mucosal and dental support plates on the accuracy and aesthetic effect of anterior dental implantation in aesthetic areas.Methods To 72 patients with anterior tooth defects who underwent aesthetic anterior tooth implantation in our hospital from May 2021 to September 2023 were selected as the research subjects.They were randomly divided into Group A(36 cases with 58 teeth)and Group B(36 cases with 49 teeth).Group A used mucosal supported guide plates,while Group B used dental supported guide plates.Professional nursing cooperation was implemented for dental implantation.After implantation,cone beam CT(CBCT)was performed to extract relevant parameters such as crown top,root tip,root depth and angle,and calculate the deviation values from before implantation for comparison between the two groups;Simultaneously evaluate the aesthetic effects of both groups using the Red Aesthetics Scale(PES)and the White Aesthetics Scale(WES).Results Both groups of patients successfully completed anterior dental implantation in the aesthetic area.Group A had a deviation of(0.53±0.18)mm,(0.67±0.21)mm,(0.41±0.13)mm,and an angle deviation of(2.46±0.73)°,while Group B had a deviation of(0.41±0.13)mm,(0.45±0.17)mm,(0.32±0.11)mm,and an angle deviation of(1.97±0.55)°,respectively,The differences between groups were statistically significant(P<0.05).After 3 months of postoperative follow-up,the WES scores of Group A and Group B were(8.62±1.72)points vs(8.79±1.75)points,with no statistically significant difference(t=0.505,P=0.614);A.The PES scores of Group B were(9.05±2.26)points vs(8.16±2.17)points,and the difference was statistically significant(t=2.067,P=0.041).Conclusion Both mucosal and dental support plates can achieve good results in implanting anterior teeth in the aesthetic area.The accuracy of dental support plate implantation is better than that of mucosal support plate,and the red aesthetic score in the aesthetic area is better than that of dental suppo

关 键 词：数字化导板 前牙种植 美学区 护理配合 种植精准度 美学效果 

分 类 号：R783.6[医药卫生—口腔医学]