Abstract:

Objective　To explore the clinical effects of digital implant guide plates in second stage implantation surgery versus traditional incision surgery. Methods　Twenty-four patients who were scheduled for second stage implantation surgery in Hospital Affiliated to Jiangnan University from January 2019 to December 2020 were randomly divided into a digital template group (group A) and a conventional group (group B), with 12 cases in each group. There were 5 males and 7 females in group A, with an average age of 31.5 years. There were 4 males and 8 females in group B, with an average age of 34.2 years. During the second stage implantation surgery in group A, the digital implant guide plates used in the first stage surgery were applied; the gingiva was cut by trephine; and the healing abutments were placed. In group B, traditional gingival incision was performed in the second stage implantation surgery, and the healing abutments were placed. The times of second stage operation, durations of postoperative pain, intraoperative bleeding volumes, postoperative healing times, postoperative pain scores, and service satisfaction of second stage operation were observed and compared between the two groups. t test and Fisher's exact probability were applied. Results　The second stage operation time in group B was longer than that in group A [(18.15±4.51) min vs. (5.52±2.32) min], with a statistical difference (P<0.05). The intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative score of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), duration of postoperative pain, and postoperative gingival tissue healing time in group A were better than those in group B [(0.50±0.10) ml vs. (1.34±0.52) ml, (1.02±0.66) vs. (8.24±3.41), (5.51±1.35) h vs. (19.66±2.55) h, (4.41±1.51) d vs. (10.11±2.45) d], with statistical differences (all P<0.05). The patient satisfaction in group A was significantly better than that in group B [91.67% (11/12) vs. 66.67% (8/12)], with no statistical difference (P>0.05). Conclusions　The application of digital implant guide plates in second stage implantation surgery can significantly reduce the operation times, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative gingival tissue healing time, and pain duration, and improve the patients' satisfaction with surgery.

Key words:

 , Implantation, Digital guide plates, Second stage implantation surgery, Efficacy observation

摘要：

目的　对比数字化种植导板在种植二期手术与传统切口手术中的临床效果。方法　选取2019年1月至2020年12月在江南大学附属医院就诊的待行种植牙二期手术的24名患者，经随机均等归入数字化导板组（A组）和常规组（B组）。A组12例，其中男5例，女7例，平均年龄31.5岁。B组12例，其中男4例，女8例，年龄均值34.2岁。A组在种植二期手术时应用Ⅰ期种植手术使用的数字化种植导板，采用环钻切开牙龈，并安放愈合基台。B组在种植二期手术时行传统牙龈切开，再将愈合基台置入。观察对比两组患者二期手术用时、术后疼痛持续时间、术中出血量、术后愈合时间、术后疼痛评分、对二期手术的服务满意度。采用t检验、Fisher确切概率法进行统计分析。结果　在二期手术用时上，A组、B组分别为（5.52±2.32）min、（18.15±4.51）min，后者明显偏长，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。在术中出血量、术后VAS评分、术后疼痛时间、术后牙龈组织愈合时间这4个方面上，A组较B组具有明显优势［（0.50±0.10）ml比（1.34±0.52）ml、（1.02±0.66）分比（8.24±3.41）分、（5.51±1.35）h比（19.66±2.55）h、（4.41±1.51）d比（10.11±2.45）d］，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。在患者满意度方面，A组为91.67%（11/12），高于B组的66.67%（8/12），但差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论　种植二期手术中应用数字化导板种植可使手术用时、术中出血量皆大幅减少，缩短术后牙龈组织愈合时间与疼痛时间，提升患者对手术的满意度。

关键词:

种植, 数字化导板, 二期手术, 疗效观察