论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察自攻型与助攻型微种植体支抗的临床成功率,比较两种不同植入方法的临床稳定性。方法:选择同一部位(上颌第二前磨牙和第一磨牙颊侧牙槽骨)植入微型种植体支抗病例165例,共324枚种植钉(其中自攻型微种植体33例64枚,助攻型微种植体132例260枚),分别采用自攻型及助攻型微型种植钉,植入4周后使用正畸矫治力,力值控制在400g以内,比较自攻型与助攻型种植支抗的稳定性。结果:助攻型植入260枚,脱落16枚,植入成功率93.8%,自攻型植入64枚,脱落9枚,成功率85.9%,助攻型成功率高于自攻型(P<0.05)。结论:助攻型微型种植体支抗植入方法临床成功率较高。
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical success rate of self-tapping and assisted micro-implant anchorage and to compare the clinical stability of two different implantation methods. Methods: One hundred and sixty-five implanting micro-implants were implanted in the same site (maxillary second premolar and buccal alveolar bone of the first molar). A total of 324 implants (including 64 self-tapping implants in 33 cases) Assisting micro-implants 132 cases of 260), respectively, self-tapping and assisting micro-implanting nail implantation 4 weeks after the use of orthodontic orthodontic force control force value of 400g or less, compared with self-tapping and assisting implant branch Anti-stability. Results: There were 260 assisting implants, 16 came off, the success rate of implantation was 93.8%, 64 self-tapping implants, 9 falling offs, the successful rate was 85.9%, and the success rate of assisting type was higher than that of self-tapping type ). Conclusion: The assisted implant mini-implant placement has a high clinical success rate.