Patil Vishal V, S Sowmya, Vathare Amit Shivakant, Desai Hima, Dewan Harisha, Yekula Prem Sagar, Sutariya Sanjana I
Department of Prosthodontics, Vasantdada Patil Dental College, Sangli, Maharashtra, India.
Department of Dentistry, ESIC PGIMSR, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Jul;16(Suppl 3):S2752-S2754. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_372_24. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
By resolving the difficulties associated with missing teeth, implant-supported restorations have emerged as a key component of contemporary dentistry. The choice of prosthetic materials is crucial in establishing the durability and clinical efficacy of these restorations.
A prospective design was used at a tertiary care hospital with 150 patients receiving implant-supported restorations. Depending on which of the three prosthetic materials were utilized for their prosthesis-ceramic, metal, or polymer-the patients were randomized into one of three groups. Clinical assessments were carried out at baseline and at regular intervals for a minimum follow-up period of [insert time]. These evaluations included implant stability, peri-implant health, restorative integrity, patient satisfaction, and maintenance needs.
When compared to metal and polymer alternatives, ceramic restorations showed superior implant stability (75.2 ± 3.6 N cm), peri-implant health (1.8 ± 0.4), and restoration integrity (92%). Ceramic restorations had the greatest patient satisfaction ratings (8.5 ± 1.2), but there was no statistically significant difference between the material groups. Restorations made of polymers showed the greatest maintenance requirements (2.0 ± 0.9).
The choice of prosthetic material has a major impact on how well implant-supported restorations function clinically. Ceramic restorations performed better in terms of restoration quality, peri-implant health, and implant stability, demonstrating their appropriateness for producing positive long-term outcomes.
通过解决与牙齿缺失相关的难题，种植体支持的修复体已成为当代牙科的关键组成部分。修复材料的选择对于确定这些修复体的耐用性和临床疗效至关重要。
在一家三级护理医院采用前瞻性设计，150名接受种植体支持修复体的患者参与研究。根据用于制作修复体的三种修复材料（陶瓷、金属或聚合物）中的哪一种，将患者随机分为三组之一。在基线时以及在至少[插入时间]的随访期内定期进行临床评估。这些评估包括种植体稳定性、种植体周围健康状况、修复完整性、患者满意度和维护需求。
与金属和聚合物替代材料相比，陶瓷修复体在种植体稳定性（75.2±3.6 N cm）、种植体周围健康状况（1.8±0.4）和修复完整性（92%）方面表现更优。陶瓷修复体的患者满意度评分最高（8.5±1.2），但材料组之间无统计学显著差异。聚合物制成的修复体维护需求最大（2.0±0.9）。
修复材料的选择对种植体支持修复体的临床功能有重大影响。陶瓷修复体在修复质量、种植体周围健康状况和种植体稳定性方面表现更好，表明它们适合产生积极的长期效果。
