Alsaadi Mohammad-Naeem, Morad Mhd Luai, Darwich Khaldoun, Kanout Shaza, Husein Hassan A
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Cureus. 2022 Nov 28;14(11):e31993. doi: 10.7759/cureus.31993. eCollection 2022 Nov.
Background Implant-supported prostheses are widely used to replace extracted teeth. Therefore, studies on abutments' designs, shapes, and benefits had increased in recent years, as the design of the standard abutment still poses many problems in periodontal and cosmetic aspects. So, could the hybrid abutment solve some of these problems? Aim We aim to conduct a clinical comparison between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of the state of peri-implant gingival tissues and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction after the cementation of the final prostheses. Material and methods The study sample consisted of 10 patients, with 20 dental implants. Each patient received two implants as a standard abutment was placed over one implant and a hybrid abutment was placed over the other. Clinical assessment of the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction was performed (immediately, three months, six months, and one year) after the cementation of the final prostheses. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect statistically significant differences between groups. Results The percentage of the thick gingival biotype was 80%, and the percentage of the thin gingival biotype was 20% in each group during the follow-up periods. In addition, all papilla fill the whole interdental space in all samples of the two groups after six months and one year. Finally, there were no significant differences in patients' aesthetic satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.631), and there were no significant differences in patients' functional satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.684). Conclusion Within the limitations of the current work, there are no differences between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of affecting the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction.
种植体支持的修复体被广泛用于替代拔除的牙齿。因此，近年来关于基台的设计、形状和益处的研究有所增加，因为标准基台的设计在牙周和美观方面仍然存在许多问题。那么，混合基台能否解决其中的一些问题呢？目的：我们旨在对标准基台和混合基台进行临床比较，比较最终修复体粘结后种植体周围牙龈组织的状况以及患者的美学和功能满意度。材料和方法：研究样本包括10名患者，共20颗牙种植体。每位患者接受两颗种植体，一颗种植体上放置标准基台，另一颗种植体上放置混合基台。在最终修复体粘结后（立即、三个月、六个月和一年）对种植体周围牙龈组织以及患者的美学和功能满意度进行临床评估。采用曼-惠特尼U检验来检测组间的统计学显著差异。结果：在随访期间，每组中厚牙龈生物型的比例为80%，薄牙龈生物型的比例为20%。此外，六个月和一年后，两组所有样本中的所有乳头均充满整个牙间隙。最后，在一年的随访期间，两组患者的美学满意度无显著差异（P = 0.631），两组患者的功能满意度在一年的随访期间也无显著差异（P = 0.684）。结论：在当前研究的局限性范围内，标准基台和混合基台在影响种植体周围牙龈组织以及患者的美学和功能满意度方面没有差异。
