不同种植深度Ankylos种植体边缘骨吸收的对比研究

两种不同系统种植体边缘骨吸收的比较研究目的：比较Xive和Ankylos两种不同种植系统应用于修复单颗牙缺失的种植体周围边缘骨吸收量的差别。

方法：临床选择60例单牙缺失患者分别采用直径4.5mm的Xive和Ankylos种植体各30例行潜入式种植手术。

在冠修复当天及修复后第3、6、12个月后分别进行全景片检查，测量种植体边缘牙槽骨高度，计算牙槽骨丧失量，用SPSS 14.0软件进行统计分析。

结果：全冠修复后两组植体以及修复体均未发生严重的并发症，且初期稳定性良好，4.5mm的Xive种植体组在冠修复当天及修复后第3、6、12个月的边缘骨吸收量分别为（0.42±0.28）mm、（0.81±0.34）mm、（1.24±0.38）mm、（1.69±0.42）mm，4.5mm的Ankylos 种植体组在冠修复当天及修复后第3，6，12个月的边缘骨吸收量分别为（0.32±0.23）mm、（0.36±0.27）mm、（0.42±0.3）mm、（0.52±0.31）mm。

两组骨吸收量经检验存在显著性差异（P＜0.05）。

均数排列4.5mm的Xive种植体组（1.06mm）大于4.5mm的Ankylos种植体组（0.42mm）。

结论：与平齐式对接设计的Xive种植组相比，功能负载1年内，平台转换设计的Ankylos种植体组可较好地保留种植体颈部边缘牙槽骨的高度。

Abstract：Objective To compare the marginal bone resorption of two implant systems which were applied to the restoration of single tooth missings. Methods 60 patients of single odontoptosis were divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group. Patients of different groups were treated by Xive impant system and Ankylos impant system. Orthopantomographies were taken on the operation day，3 months，6months，and 12 months after implant placement. Marginal bone altitude and marginal bone loss were measured on the orthopantomographies. All data were statistically analyzed by SPSS14.0 software. Rusults There were no severe complications in the both groups，and the stability in initial stage was good. Marginal bone resorption of 4.5mm Xive impant on the operation day，3rd month，6th month，and 12th month after implant placement were （0.42±0.28），（0.81±0.34），（1.24±0.38），（1.69±0.42）mm.Marginal bone resorption of 4.5 mm Ankylos impant on the operation day，3rd month，6th month，and 12th month after implant placement were（0.32±0.23），（0.36±0.27），（0.42±0.3），（0.52±0.31）mm. There were statistically significant differences in marginal bone resorption between the two implant systems （P＜0.05）. The mean marginal bone resorption of Xive impant（1.06mm）was higher than that of Ankylos impant（0.42mm）. Conclusion Ankylos impant which is designed by platform switching could reserve the marginal bone altitude better than Xive impant which is designed by platform joint in one years function load.Key words：implant systems；marginal bone resorption；platform switching种植义齿以其良好的功能性及满意的美学修复效果成为牙缺失的首选修复方式。

不同牙种植体系统对种植体周围骨组织吸收的影响祝岩;万澎波;赵伟;王晓玲;刘瑾;魏抗抗;刘军祥【摘要】BACKGROUND:The peri-implant bone absorption is closely related to the repair effect. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of three kinds of dental implant systems on the peri-implant bone absorption. METHODS:116 patients who underwent the dental implant systems were col ected, including 46 cases with 3I implant system, 40 cases with ITI implant system and 30 cases with BLB implant system. The peri-implant bone absorption, sulcus bleeding index and periodontal probing depth of three groups were detected at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after implantation, respectively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:The peri-implant bone absorption of three groups within 1 year after implantation was in a rise, and the bone absorption of BLB group was significantly higher than that of ITI and 3I groups at 3 and 12 months after implantation (P<0.05). Compared with the natural teeth, the gingival sulcus bleeding index of three groups were al increased at different time points after implantation;the gingival sulcus bleeding index of BLB group was significantly higher than that of natural teeth at 6 months after implantation (P<0.05);the gingival sulcus bleeding index of three groups were significantly higher than that of natural teeth at 9 months after implantation (P<0.05). The periodontal probing depth of three groups showed an ascending trend at 6 months after implantation;the periodontal probing depth of three groups was higher than that of natural teeth atdifferent time points after implantation, which exhibited significant differences at 6 and 9 months after implantation (P<0.05). In conclusion, three kinds of dental implant systems exhibit differet effects on the peri-implant bone absorption, but al achieve excel ent clinical efficacies.%背景：种植体周围骨组织吸收情况与修复效果密切相关。

不同骨质中平台转换种植体植入深度对种植体周围骨应力的影响目的：运用三维有限元方法，研究在不同牙槽骨骨质情况下，平台转换设计种植体植入深度对种植体周围骨应力分布及大小的影响，为临床中根据患者骨质条件合理设计种植方案及平台转换种植体的临床应用提供理论基础。

方法：利用CT扫描技术，得到上颌骨及牙列DICOM格式的数据文件，结合Mimics10.01软件和Geomagic studio10逆向工程软件，完成前牙区上颌骨及中切牙牙冠实体模型的三维重建。

并对颌骨模型进行简化，得到皮质骨厚度分别为2.5mm和1.5mm 的两种骨块模型。

利用CAD建模软件Solidworks2010，依据Ankylos种植体（3.5×11mm）外形数据建立平台转换种植体模型。

按照实验设计，对牙冠、种植体和两种骨块模型按不同植入深度装配（牙槽嵴顶上1mm、平牙槽嵴顶、牙槽嵴顶下1mm、2mm、3mm）。

导入有限元软件ANSYS14.0分析轴向100N及侧向100N两种加载下种植体周围骨Vonmises应力分布及其峰值变化规律。

结果：1.成功建立了四类骨质中包含不同植入深度的种植修复体三维有限元模型，力学和结构相似性好，为准确的有限元分析奠定了基础。

2.不同方向的载荷下，种植体周围骨应力主要集中在种植体颈部平台与皮质骨接触区，随着种植体基台界面下移，应力集中位置从牙槽嵴顶向下转移，减轻了牙槽嵴顶负荷。

轴向载荷下松质骨应力主要集中在种植体根端，斜向加载下集中在冠方与皮质骨连接处。

3.不同骨质内，IAJ位于嵴下1mm时Vonmise应力峰值均最小。

IAJ由平嵴顶转移至嵴下1mm时，四类骨质中Vonmises应力峰值在轴向载荷下分别减小23.7％、25.9％、22.0％、19.2％，斜向载荷下分别减少26.1％、25.3％、20.7％、2.1％。

4.不同加载下，在相同植入深度时，皮质骨Vonmises应力峰值均为IV 类骨&gt;III类骨&gt;II类骨&gt;I类骨，尤其由II类骨变为III类骨，皮质骨厚度减小时增加更为显著。

三种不同种植深度种植体修复单牙缺失的疗效对比研究作者：吴雪吴晓红段少宇来源：《中国美容医学》2023年第12期[摘要]目的：對比3种不同种植深度AnKylos系统种植体修复单牙缺失的边缘骨吸收量及其红色美学指数。

方法：选取2018年3月-2020年3月于笔者医院接受治疗的120例单牙缺失患者作为研究对象，根据不同种植深度分为A组、B组、C组，各40例。

A组种植深度为平齐骨缘（0 mm），B组种植深度为骨缘下1 mm，C组种植深度为骨缘下2 mm。

对比三组种植体周围年均骨吸收量、种植体边缘骨水平稳定性、红色美学指数（Red aesthetic index，PES）、白色美学指数（White aesthetic index，WES）、主观满意度和并发症发生情况。

结果：三组年均骨吸收量比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。

C组种植体边缘骨水平稳定性高于A组及B组，B组种植体边缘骨水平稳定性高于A组（P＜0.05）。

三组PES、WES在组间、时间作用上差异均存在统计学意义（P＜0.05），但在组间、时间交互作用上差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。

C组患者对色泽、咀嚼功能和整体美观的主观满意度均高于A组及B组，B组患者主观满意度均高于A组（P＜0.05）。

三组患者并发症对比无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。

结论：在应用AnKylos种植系统修复单牙缺失时，植入深度控制在骨缘下2 mm有利于提高周围骨组织的稳定性，美学效果良好，患者满意度高。

[关键词]牙缺失；AnKylos种植系统；种植深度；边缘骨吸收量；边缘骨水平稳定性[中图分类号]R783.3 [文献标志码]A [文章编号]1008-6455（2023）12-0157-04Comparative Study of Three Different Implant Depths in Repairing Single Tooth LossWU Xue，WU Xiaohong，DUAN Shaoyu（Department of Stomatology，Beijing Electric Power Hospital，Beijing 100073，China）Abstract： Objective To compare the marginal bone resorption and red aesthetic index of AnKylos implant system with three different implant depths in the restoration of single missing tooth. Methods A total of 120 patients with single tooth loss who were treated in the author's hospital from March 2018 to March 2020 were selected as the research subjects and divided into group A， group B and group C according to the different planting depth， with 40 cases in each group. The planting depth in the group A was flush with the bone margin （0 mm）， that in the group B was 1mm below the bone margin， and that in the group C was 2 mm below the bone margin. The average annual bone resorption around the implant， horizontal stability of bone at the edge of the implant，red aesthetic index （PES）， white aesthetic index （WES）， subjective satisfaction， and complication incidence were compared among the three groups. Results There was no significant difference in average annual bone resorption among the three groups （P＞0.05）. The horizontal stability of the peri-implant bone in group C was higher than that in group A and group B， and the horizontal stability of the peri-implant bone in group B was higher than that in group A （P＜0.05）.There were statistically significant differences in the intergroup and time effects of PES and WES among the three groups （P＜0.05）， but no statistically significant differences in the intergroup and time interaction between the three groups （P＞0.05）. The subjective satisfaction of patients in group C on color， chewing function and overall aesthetics was higher than those in group A and group B. The subjective satisfaction of patients in group B was higher than that in group A （P ＜0.05）. There was no significant difference in complications between the three groups （P＞0.05）. Conclusion When using AnKylos implant system to repair single tooth defect， controlling theimplant depth to 2 mm below the bone margin can improve the stability of the surrounding bone tissue，with good aesthetic effect and high patient satisfaction.Key words： single tooth loss; AnKylos cropping system; depth of planting; marginal bone resorption; horizontal stability of marginal bone长时间牙齿缺失会造成咀嚼功能和发音功能障碍，并严重影响患者面部美观[1]。

两种不同系统种植体边缘骨吸收的比较研究xx年xx月xx日•研究背景和目的•研究方法和对象•研究结果和讨论•结论目•参考文献录01研究背景和目的种植牙作为牙齿缺失的修复方法，其成功率与多种因素有关，如种植体系统的选择、手术操作、术后护理等。

其中，种植体边缘骨吸收是影响种植牙寿命和成功的重要因素之一。

不同种植体系统在边缘骨吸收方面可能存在差异，这可能与系统的设计、材料、表面处理等因素有关。

因此，比较不同系统种植体边缘骨吸收的研究具有重要意义。

研究背景VS1研究目的23比较两种不同系统种植体（系统A和系统B）在边缘骨吸收方面的差异。

分析边缘骨吸收与种植体系统之间的关系。

为医生和患者提供有关种植体选择的参考依据。

02研究方法和对象研究方法采用随机对照试验的方法，将受试者分为两组，分别接受两种不同系统的种植体植入手术。

实验设计种植体选择手术过程骨吸收检测选择市场上常用的两种不同系统的种植体，分别为A系统和B系统。

受试者均在局部麻醉下接受种植体植入手术，手术过程严格按照操作规范进行。

在手术后定期进行X线检查，测量种植体边缘的骨高度，观察骨吸收情况。

03受试者分组根据受试者的年龄、性别、牙位等因素进行配对，将受试者随机分为A组和B组，每组受试者数量相等。

研究对象01受试者纳入标准选择年龄在18-60岁之间，身体健康，无吸烟史，同意接受种植体植入手术的受试者。

02受试者排除标准排除患有严重全身性疾病、骨质疏松症、长期使用影响骨代谢药物等受试者。

03研究结果和讨论结果在定量比较方面，研究结果显示，系统A的边缘骨吸收均值为1.5mm，系统B的边缘骨吸收均值为1.2mm，系统A的边缘骨吸收程度略高于系统B。

讨论这种差异可能是由于两种系统的设计、材料、表面处理等方面的不同所导致的。

系统A可能对周围骨组织的应力分布和骨整合产生一定的影响，从而影响了边缘骨的吸收。

边缘骨吸收的定量比较结果在定性比较方面，研究结果显示，系统A的边缘骨吸收主要表现为局部骨质稀疏和骨缺损，而系统B的边缘骨吸收主要表现为骨质硬化和骨密度增加。