目的:评价球帽附着体和Locator附着体应用于种植覆盖义齿的临床效果.方法:纳入无牙颌患者67例,共植入150颗Straumann或Bego种植体,完成球帽式或Locator式种植覆盖义齿修复.定期随访复查,包括修复后生物并发症和机械并发症情况和患者满意度调查.采用SPSS 17.0软件统计分析.结果:完成随访58例,球帽组35例,Locator组26例,球帽改Locator组7例.生物并发症比较显示,球帽组的牙龈增生发生率明显高于Locator组(P＜0.05);球帽组和Locator组的机械并发症发生率无显著差异(P＞0.05),但Locator组各类机械并发症的发生次数少于球帽组,球帽组平均修理频次为1.9次,Locator组为0.9次;Locator组患者对咀嚼和固位的满意度高于球帽组,不同性别的患者满意度无差异,满意度与患者的年龄和随访时间无相关性.结论:Locator式种植覆盖义齿相比球帽式种植覆盖义齿,临床效果具有一定优势.%Objective:To evaluate the clinical effects of ball attachment and Locator attachment for implant-supported overdenture.Methods:67 cases with edentulous jaw were treated with 150 Straumann and Bego implants and implant-supported overdentures using ball attachments Locator attachments,respectively.All cases were followed up regularly,biological and mechanical complications were observed,the patient satisfaction after restoration was compared between groups.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0 software.Results:Follow-up was completed in 58 cases,25 with ball attachment,26 with Locator attachment and 7 with ball changed by Locator.Biological complications comparison showed that the incidence of gingival hyperplasia in the ball group was higher than that in the Locator group(P ＜ 0.05).There was no statistical difference of mechanical complications between the 2 groups (P ＞ 0.05),but the incidence of all kinds of mechanical complications in the Locator group was less than those in the ball group,the average repair frequency of the ball and Locator group was 1.9 times and 0.9 times respectively.Patients'satisfaction on chewing and retention was higher in the Locator attachment group than that in the ball attachment group(P ＜ 0.05).No statistical difference was found in patients' satisfaction between genders (P＞0.05),and no correlation of satisfaction was found with patients' age and follow-up time.Conclusion:The clinical effects of implant-supported overdenture using the Locator attachment is superior to that using the ball attachment.
展开▼
