University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Groningen, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dental School, Department of Implant Dentistry, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Prosthodont Res. 2020 Jan;64(1):26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.013. Epub 2019 Jun 11.
Comparison of outcomes of maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of either locator attachments or bars in a 1-year randomized controlled trial.
Fifty edentulous participants received four maxillary implants. They were allocated to two groups (n = 25) differing in type of prosthetic attachment used to retain the maxillary prosthesis: either locator attachments or bars were applied. After one year, implant and overdenture survival was assessed. Peri-implant hygiene (Plaque-index, presence of calculus), soft tissue conditions (Gingiva-index, Sulcus Bleeding-index and pocket probing depth) and patient satisfaction (oral health impact profile (OHIP-49), denture complaints questionnaire and general satisfaction score (GSS)) were compared. The peri-implant bone level was estimated using intra-oral radiographs (student T-test).
Implant survival was 96.7% in the locator group and 97.9% in the bar group. No overdentures had to be remade. Patient satisfaction was significantly greater in the bar group when rated by OHIP-49 sum score and by GSS. When comparing the denture complaints questionnaire and the separate OHIP-49 item scores, no significant difference was found. There was not a significant difference in hygiene and soft tissue conditions. Marginal bone loss was estimated 0.58 ± 0.71 mm for locators and 0.31 ± 0.47 mm for bars.
Maxillary overdentures on four implants retained by bars or locators were compared. Bone loss was within an acceptable range for both groups after 1 year. However, less bone was lost in the bar group. Even though both treatment options improved patient satisfaction, bars seem to be particularly beneficial with regard to OHIP-49 sum score.
在为期 1 年的随机对照试验中，比较使用Locator 附着体或杆固位的上颌种植覆盖义齿的治疗效果。
50 名无牙颌患者接受了 4 枚上颌种植体。根据使用的修复体附着体类型，将他们分为两组（n=25）：Locator 附着体或杆。1 年后，评估种植体和覆盖义齿的存活率。比较两组的种植体周围卫生状况（菌斑指数、牙石存在情况）、软组织状况（牙龈指数、探诊出血指数和牙周袋探诊深度）和患者满意度（口腔健康影响程度量表（OHIP-49）、义齿满意度问卷和总体满意度评分（GSS））。使用口腔内 X 光片评估种植体周围骨水平（学生 t 检验）。
Locator 组的种植体存活率为 96.7%，杆组为 97.9%。没有义齿需要重新制作。OHIP-49 总评分和 GSS 评分显示，杆组患者的满意度显著更高。在比较义齿满意度问卷和 OHIP-49 的单独项目评分时，没有发现显著差异。两组的卫生和软组织状况没有显著差异。Locator 组的边缘骨吸收量估计为 0.58±0.71mm，杆组为 0.31±0.47mm。
比较了 4 枚种植体支持的上颌覆盖义齿，使用杆或Locator 固位。1 年后，两组的骨吸收量均在可接受范围内。然而，杆组的骨吸收量较少。尽管两种治疗方案都提高了患者的满意度，但杆似乎对 OHIP-49 总评分的改善更为有益。
