Kandathilparambil Maria Roseme, Nelluri Vizaikumar Vasudha, Vayadadi Bhanu Chander, Gajjam Naveen Kumar
Department of Prosthodontics, S B Patil Dental College and Hospital, Bidar, Karnataka, India.
Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020 Oct-Dec;20(4):378-386. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_155_20. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
The aim of the study is to evaluate the proximal contact tightness (PCT) between single-tooth implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) and the adjacent natural teeth with and without the intervention of the Essix retainer at the end of 1 year.
-experimental study.
Forty patients with a single ISP in the first molar region of the mandibular arch are included in the study who were randomly divided into two groups - Group I (20): those without an intervention of Essix retainer and Group II (20): those with the intervention of Essix retainer (2 mm thickness) (Thermo Vac, Inc. USA) delivered immediately after the restoration of implant with the definitive prosthesis. The groups are further subdivided into Subgroups A (control) and B within Group I and Subgroups C (control) and D within Group II. Mesial and distal PCT values were recorded in each quadrant using the digital force gauge, and values obtained at the end of 1 year were subjected for statistical analysis.
Independent sample -test was performed. < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
On nonusage of Essix retainer, in comparison to the control group, there were a 57.9% decrease in PCT values for the ISP on mesial contact ( < 0.05) and a 38.9% decrease for the distal contact ( > 0.05), whereas on the usage of Essix retainer, the PCT values for ISP on mesial contact decreased to 25.3% (not significant) and 33.7% on the distal contact ( > 0.05). The incidence of contact loss was found to be 30%, whereas it decreased to 15% on the usage of Essix retainer.
The usage of Essix retainer showed a significant difference in increasing the PCT values, especially on the mesial contact. The incidence of contact loss, which was found to be 30%, decreased to 15% on its usage.
本研究旨在评估单颗种植体支持式修复体(ISP)与相邻天然牙之间的近中接触紧密度(PCT),以及在1年末有无Essix保持器干预的情况下二者的差异。
实验性研究。
本研究纳入了40名下颌弓第一磨牙区有单颗ISP的患者,这些患者被随机分为两组——第一组(20例):未使用Essix保持器;第二组(20例):使用Essix保持器(厚度2毫米)(美国Thermo Vac公司),在种植体修复并戴入最终修复体后立即佩戴。第一组进一步细分为A亚组(对照组)和B亚组,第二组进一步细分为C亚组(对照组)和D亚组。使用数字式测力计记录每个象限的近中及远中PCT值,并对1年末获得的值进行统计分析。
进行独立样本t检验。P<0.05被视为具有统计学意义。
未使用Essix保持器时,与对照组相比,ISP近中接触的PCT值降低了57.9%(P<0.05),远中接触降低了38.9%(P>0.05);而使用Essix保持器时,ISP近中接触的PCT值降至25.3%(无统计学意义),远中接触降至33.7%(P>0.05)。发现接触丧失的发生率为30%,而使用Essix保持器后降至15%。
使用Essix保持器在增加PCT值方面显示出显著差异,尤其是在近中接触方面。接触丧失的发生率为30%,使用后降至15%。