当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Oral Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Retrospective study comparing the clinical outcomes of bar-clip and ball attachment implant-supported overdentures.
Journal of Oral Science ( IF 1.9 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-26 , DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.19-0412
Bruno R Chrcanovic 1 , Peyman Ghiasi 1 , Jenö Kisch 1 , Liselott Lindh 1 , Christel Larsson 1
Affiliation  

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of implant-supported overdentures (ODs) with either bar-clip or ball attachments. The implant, prosthesis failure, and technical complications were the outcomes analyzed in this retrospective clinical study conducted in a specialty clinic. Seventy-five patients with 242 implants supported by 76 ODs (36 maxillary, 40 mandibular) were included in the study and followed up for 88.8 ± 82.9 months (mean ± standard deviation). Bar-clip and ball attachments were used in 78.9% and 21.1% of the cases, respectively. Forty-three implant failures (17.8%) in 17 prostheses (17/76; 22.4%) were observed in this study. The average period of implant failure was 43.3 ± 41.0 months, and most of them were maxillary turned implants. The bar-clip system demonstrated more complications in the attachment parts compared to the ball attachment system. Poor retention of the prosthesis was similar between the two systems. Loss of implants resulted in the failure of 10 ODs in this study. ODs opposed by natural dentition or fixed prostheses presented with more complications. The Cox proportional hazards model did not show a significant effect on prosthesis failure for any of the factors. These findings indicated that patients with ODs need constant maintenance follow-ups to address the technical complications and perform prosthodontic maintenance regardless of the attachment system used.



中文翻译:

回顾性研究比较了杆夹和球附着植入物支持的覆盖义齿的临床效果。

这项研究的目的是比较带有杆夹或球形附件的植入物支持的覆盖义齿(OD)的临床结果。在专科诊所进行的这项回顾性临床研究中分析了植入物,假体失败和技术并发症。该研究纳入了75例242枚种植体,由76个OD(36个上颌骨,40个下颌骨)支撑,并随访了88.8±82.9个月(平均±标准差)。分别有78.9%和21.1%的病例使用了条形夹和球形附件。在这项研究中,观察到17个假体中有43个假体失败(17.8%)(17/76; 22.4%)。种植体失败的平均时间为43.3±41.0个月,其中大多数为上颌翻身种植体。与球固定系统相比,直杆式夹子系统在固定部件上显示出更多的复杂性。在两个系统之间,假体保留不佳的情况相似。在这项研究中,植入物的丢失导致10个OD失效。具有天然牙列或固定假体的OD出现更多的并发症。对于任何因素,Cox比例风险模型均未显示对修复失败的重大影响。这些发现表明,无论使用何种附件系统,OD患者都需要进行持续的维护随访,以解决技术并发症并进行修复修复。具有天然牙列或固定假体的OD出现更多的并发症。对于任何因素,Cox比例风险模型均未显示对修复失败的重大影响。这些发现表明,无论使用何种附件系统,OD患者都需要进行持续的维护随访,以解决技术并发症并进行修复修复。具有天然牙列或固定假体的OD出现更多的并发症。对于任何因素,Cox比例风险模型均未显示对修复失败的重大影响。这些发现表明,无论使用何种附件系统,OD患者都需要进行持续的维护随访,以解决技术并发症并进行修复修复。

更新日期:2020-09-25
down
wechat
bug