African health sciences · 2023
Observation of the clinical effect of immediate implantation and delayed implantation in the maxillary and maxillary molars.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yu Jie, Liu Xiaoping, Li Daning, Xu Yiming, Wang Chao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical application effect of two kinds of implants in the upper and lower molars.
METHODS: A selection of 120 patients (134 teeth) who underwent implant treatment in the upper and lower molars in the army hospital of the Chinese people's liberation army from January 2018 to June 2019 were divided into an immediate group (using immediate implantation) and a delayed group (using delayed implantation) using a random number table 60 cases (60 teeth) in each group; differences in implant success rate, buccal keratinized gingival width before and after treatment, alveolar bone absorption, periodontal pocket depth, and gingival aesthetic indicators were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The gingival aesthetics effect of the immediate group was better than that of the delayed group on the whole and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); after 12 months of restoration, the implantation success rate of the immediate group was 96.67%. The deferred group was 93.33%, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both delayed restoration and immediate implant restoration can achieve good results in implant restoration treatment in the maxillary and maxillary molars. However, immediate implantation has certain advantages in reducing the amount of alveolar bone absorption and maintaining the aesthetic effect of the gums.
METHODS: A selection of 120 patients (134 teeth) who underwent implant treatment in the upper and lower molars in the army hospital of the Chinese people's liberation army from January 2018 to June 2019 were divided into an immediate group (using immediate implantation) and a delayed group (using delayed implantation) using a random number table 60 cases (60 teeth) in each group; differences in implant success rate, buccal keratinized gingival width before and after treatment, alveolar bone absorption, periodontal pocket depth, and gingival aesthetic indicators were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The gingival aesthetics effect of the immediate group was better than that of the delayed group on the whole and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); after 12 months of restoration, the implantation success rate of the immediate group was 96.67%. The deferred group was 93.33%, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both delayed restoration and immediate implant restoration can achieve good results in implant restoration treatment in the maxillary and maxillary molars. However, immediate implantation has certain advantages in reducing the amount of alveolar bone absorption and maintaining the aesthetic effect of the gums.