Kronström Mats, Trulsson Mats, Söderfeldt Björn
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Center for Oral Health Sciences, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
J Prosthodont. 2004 Sep;13(3):160-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04027.x.
The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.
Twenty-one subjects with maxillary tooth- and implant-supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth- and implant-supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw-retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant-supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction.
The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups.
The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.
本研究的目的是比较在上颌中使用种植体或天然牙与种植体联合支持的全牙弓固定修复体患者的治疗效果。
确定并纳入21例上颌牙支持与种植体支持固定修复体的患者以及21例上颌种植体支持固定修复体的患者。在牙支持与种植体支持修复体组中，所有基牙均制作带垂直锁定螺钉螺纹的粘结式顶盖。支架采用金合金制作，表面覆盖丙烯酸树脂或陶瓷材料。所有支架均通过螺钉固定于种植体和顶盖上。种植体支持修复体组的支架采用铣削钛或金合金制作，并应用义齿牙和树脂基托材料。所有修复体至少有8个单位，其中至少4个位于一个象限。两组患者均收到一份包含15个问题的问卷，这些问题聚焦于与治疗效果相关的各种因素，如口腔功能和患者满意度。
回复率为86%。两组对大多数项目的满意度均较高，很少有人后悔自己的治疗选择。两组中的大多数人都报告咀嚼能力有很大改善，很少有人报告语音障碍。两组之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。
本研究结果显示两组参与者在问卷回复方面具有相似性。在上颌仅由种植体支持的全牙弓固定修复体患者以及由天然牙和种植体联合支持修复体患者中，均报告了较高的满意度。
