CAJ | 학술논문

目的：对比分析种植牙修复与固定桥修复在前牙单个缺失中的效果。方法根据患者意愿将本院口腔科2011年4月～2013年6月收治的147例（147颗牙）前牙单个缺失患者分为种植修复组（采用种植牙修复治疗，74颗牙）和固定桥组（采用固定桥修复方法，73颗牙），比较两组患者的临床疗效差异。结果修复治疗后龈缘水平分布比较，种植修复组分布于0～0.5mm水平达到91.89%，固定桥组为79.45%，两组患者的龈缘水平分布差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；修复治疗后两组唇侧丰满度分布比较，种植修复组唇侧丰满度分布于0～1mm水平达到89.19%，固定桥组为71.23%，种植修复组显著优于固定桥组患者（P＜0.05）。修复当日、修复半年后、修复1年后种植修复组患者的总咬合力、左右向位移、前后向位移检测值均优于固定桥组但差异均不具有统计学意义（P＞0.05）。种植修复组患者在修复1年后的临床疗效评估为有效率95.95%显著的高于固定桥组的80.82%，且差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论种植牙修复较固定桥修复在前牙单个缺失中具有更加显著的临床效果。
목적：대비분석충식아수복여고정교수복재전아단개결실중적효과。방법근거환자의원장본원구강과2011년4월～2013년6월수치적147례（147과아）전아단개결실환자분위충식수복조（채용충식아수복치료，74과아）화고정교조（채용고정교수복방법，73과아），비교량조환자적림상료효차이。결과수복치료후간연수평분포비교，충식수복조분포우0～0.5mm수평체도91.89%，고정교조위79.45%，량조환자적간연수평분포차이구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）；수복치료후량조진측봉만도분포비교，충식수복조진측봉만도분포우0～1mm수평체도89.19%，고정교조위71.23%，충식수복조현저우우고정교조환자（P＜0.05）。수복당일、수복반년후、수복1년후충식수복조환자적총교합력、좌우향위이、전후향위이검측치균우우고정교조단차이균불구유통계학의의（P＞0.05）。충식수복조환자재수복1년후적림상료효평고위유효솔95.95%현저적고우고정교조적80.82%，차차이구유통계학의의（P＜0.05）。결론충식아수복교고정교수복재전아단개결실중구유경가현저적림상효과。
Objective To comparative analyze the effect of implant prosthesis and fixed bridge in patients with anterior tooth single deficiency.Methods 147 patients (147 teeth) with anterior tooth single deficiency, who were treated in stomatology department of our hospital from April 2011 to June 2013, were divided into implant prosthesis group of 74 teeth which were treated with implant prosthesis, and fixed bridge group of 73 teeth which were treated with fixed bridge. To compare the differences of clinical effect of patients between the two groups.ResultsThe gingival margin level mainly distributed in the level of 0~0.5mm in implant prosthesis group(91.89%) was significantly better than which in fixed bridge group(79.45%)(P<0.05), the labial side fullness distributed in the level of 0~1mm in implant prosthesis group(89.19%) was significantly better than which in fixed bridge group(71.23%)(P<0.05). The total bite force, the detection value of left and right directional displacement, the detection value of pre and post directional at the same day of repair, half year after repair, 1 year after repair in implant prosthesis group were no statistical significance compared with which in fixed bridge group(P>0.05). The effective rate of clinical efficacy evaluation 1 year after repair in implant prosthesis group(95.95%) was obviously higher than which in fixed bridge group(80.82%), the difference was statistical significance(P<0.05).Conclusion Implant prosthesis in patients with anterior tooth single deficiency has more significantly clinical effect compare with which of fixed bridge.