Kordaß Bernd, Quooß Alexandra, John Diana, Ruge Sebastian
Int J Comput Dent. 2018;21(1):9-15.
Occlusion is a central aspect of all prosthetic restorations, including complete dentures. Within the follow-up (SHIP 1) of the regional population-based "Study of Health in Pomerania" (SHIP), a number of 3300 study participants were examined concerning the occlusion of artificial teeth in purely mucosa and non-implant-borne complete dentures. These subjects were representative of the population. Therefore, occlusal bite registrations obtained in habitual intercuspation (IP) were made and were digitally evaluated with the Greifswald Digital Analyzing System (GEDAS) software based on transparent contact areas. A total of 495 subjects wore such complete dentures, of whom 438 wore maxillary dentures (217 men, 71.3 ± 9.2 years; 221 women, 68.9 ± 9.1 years), and 278 wore mandibular dentures (141 men, 70.4 ± 8.5 years; 137 women, 70.4 ± 8.5 years). The mean number of denture teeth was 13.4 ± 0.89 in the maxilla (of which 6.8 ± 2.77 were in occlusal contact), and 13.3 ± 0.91 in the mandible (of which 6.8 ± 2.97 were in occlusal contact). In general, the premolars (maxilla: 2.8 ± 1.31; mandible: 2.6 ± 1.29 teeth) had more occlusal contact than the molars (maxilla: 2.2 ± 1.24; mandible: 2.3 ± 1.23 teeth). The differences were highly significant, with P < 0.01 in the Wilcoxon test for paired samples. Furthermore, there were distinctions between both sides, with the right side having more posterior teeth in contact than the left side (maxillary right: 2.6 ± 1.18; maxillary left: 2.5 ± 1.14; mandibular right: 2.5 ± 1.13; mandibular left: 2.4 ± 1.13), each significant for the maxilla at P = 0.022 (Wilcoxon test). Here, the number of denture teeth played a role. In dentures with exactly 14 denture teeth (maxillary: n = 301; mandibular: n = 179), there were significantly more molars than premolars in contact in the mandible (premolars: 2.4 ± 1.37; molars: 2.7 ± 1.27; P = 0.026), whereas in the maxilla the ratio of premolars to molars in contact was reversed (premolars: 2.8 ± 1.36; molars: 2.6 ± 1.25); however, the latter difference proved barely significant at just P = 0.099. Women tended to have slightly fewer contact-bearing teeth than men (posteriors in men: 5.1 ± 2.04; in women: 4.9 ± 2.03); the differences were not significant. Nor were there any significant differences between the groups < 70 years (maxillary: n = 189; mandibular: n = 101), and ≥ 70 years (maxillary: n = 249; mandibular: n = 177). The presence of dysfunction of the masticatory system was determined using the Helkimo Index (HI). A value of HI ≥ 2 was regarded as dysfunctional. The groups with and without dysfunctions differed significantly for the number of posterior teeth on the right side of the maxilla (HI ≥ 2: 2.2 ± 1.34; HI < 2: 2.6 ± 1.6; P = 0.041) in the Mann-Whitney U test. The difference in the groups according to HI was found to be slightly significant regarding the number of posteriors (HI ≥ 2: 4.5 ± 2.28; HI < 2: 5.1 ± 2.00; P = 0.063) and molars (HI ≥ 2: 1.9 ± 1.34; HI < 2: 2.3 ± 1.22; P = 0.092) with occlusal contacts. The differences for the mandibular premolars and for the maxillary left posterior teeth were not significant.
With regard to masticatory system dysfunctions, it makes sense to ensure that there are molar contacts, especially in the maxilla. A tendency to "premolarize" contacts should be counteracted by appropriate measures.
咬合是所有修复体(包括全口义齿)的核心要素。在基于地区人群的“波美拉尼亚健康研究”(SHIP)的随访期(SHIP 1)内,对3300名研究参与者的纯黏膜支持和非种植支持的全口义齿人工牙咬合情况进行了检查。这些受试者具有人群代表性。因此,获取了习惯性牙尖交错位(IP)的咬合记录,并使用格赖夫斯瓦尔德数字分析系统(GEDAS)软件基于透明接触区域进行数字评估。共有495名受试者佩戴此类全口义齿,其中438人佩戴上颌义齿(217名男性,71.3±9.2岁;221名女性,68.9±9.1岁),278人佩戴下颌义齿(141名男性,70.4±8.5岁;137名女性,70.4±8.5岁)。上颌义齿平均牙数为13.4±0.89颗(其中6.8±2.77颗处于咬合接触),下颌义齿平均牙数为13.3±0.91颗(其中6.8±2.97颗处于咬合接触)。总体而言,前磨牙(上颌:2.8±1.31颗;下颌:2.6±1.29颗)的咬合接触比磨牙(上颌:2.2±1.24颗;下颌:2.3±1.23颗)更多。差异具有高度显著性,配对样本的Wilcoxon检验中P<0.01。此外,两侧存在差异,右侧后牙接触比左侧多(上颌右侧:2.6±1.18颗;上颌左侧:2.5±1.14颗;下颌右侧:2.5±1.13颗;下颌左侧:2.4±1.13颗),上颌的差异在P = 0.022时具有显著性(Wilcoxon检验)。在此,义齿牙数起到了作用。在义齿牙数恰好为14颗的义齿中(上颌:n = 301;下颌:n = 179),下颌中处于咬合接触的磨牙比前磨牙显著更多(前磨牙:2.4±1.37颗;磨牙:2.7±1.27颗;P = 0.026),而上颌中处于咬合接触的前磨牙与磨牙比例则相反(前磨牙:2.8±1.36颗;磨牙:2.6±1.25颗);然而,后者差异仅在P = 0.099时勉强具有显著性。女性的接触牙数往往比男性略少(男性后牙:5.1±2.04颗;女性后牙:4.9±2.03颗);差异不具有显著性。70岁以下组(上颌:n = 189;下颌:n = 101)和70岁及以上组(上颌:n = 249;下颌:n = 177)之间也没有显著差异。使用赫尔基莫指数(HI)确定咀嚼系统功能障碍的存在。HI≥2的值被视为功能障碍。在Mann-Whitney U检验中,上颌右侧后牙数在有功能障碍组和无功能障碍组之间存在显著差异(HI≥2:2.2±1.34颗;HI<2:2.6±1.6颗;P = 0.041)。根据HI分组,后牙数(HI≥2:4.5±2.28颗;HI<2:5.1±2.00颗;P = 0.063)和磨牙数(HI≥2:1.9±1.34颗;HI<2:2.3±1.22颗;P = 0.092)的差异在两组间略显显著。下颌前磨牙和上颌左侧后牙的差异不具有显著性。
关于咀嚼系统功能障碍,确保磨牙接触是有意义的,尤其是在上颌。应通过适当措施抵消“前磨牙化”接触的趋势。