Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine International Pub Date : 2023-03-24 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/9917311
Kefei Li, Fang Liu, Pan Liu, Cuifang Wei, Xue Li
{"title":"Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy.","authors":"Kefei Li, Fang Liu, Pan Liu, Cuifang Wei, Xue Li","doi":"10.1155/2023/9917311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients' satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.</p>","PeriodicalId":11528,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"2023 ","pages":"9917311"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10065858/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9917311","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect.

Methods: From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients' satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared.

Results: The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
微创种植疗法的临床效果和美学评估
目的:探讨微创种植体治疗牙体缺损的临床效果和美学评价:探讨微创种植在牙列缺损治疗中的临床效果和美学评价:收集 2020 年 4 月至 2021 年 5 月期间接受种植修复的 60 例患者作为研究对象。随机分为微创手术组(30 例)和常规手术组(30 例)。比较两组患者术后抗生素使用时间、疼痛消失时间、肿胀程度、疼痛程度。随访一年,记录并比较两组患者的种植成功率和修复美学评价。收集并比较患者对修复体的满意度评价:结果:微创手术组患者的手术时间和抗生素使用时间明显短于传统手术组,肿胀程度评分明显优于传统手术组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。微创手术组无疼痛(0 度)和轻度疼痛(度)患者人数明显高于常规手术组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。修复一年后,微创手术组植入成功率为 100.00%,常规手术组为 93.33%,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。微创手术组患者在近端龈乳头、远端龈乳头、唇侧龈缘弧度、唇侧龈缘高度、牙根凸度、软组织颜色、软组织质地7个项目的美学效果评分均高于常规手术组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。微创手术组患者在咀嚼功能、舒适度、美观度、固位功能、语言功能等方面的满意度评分均高于传统手术组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05):结论:微创种植体能达到与传统种植体相同的效果,且具有术后肿胀轻、疼痛时间短、美观效果好、修复后满意度高等优点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine International
Emergency Medicine International EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to prehospital care, disaster preparedness and response, acute medical and paediatric emergencies, critical care, sports medicine, wound care, and toxicology.
期刊最新文献
Risk Factors of In-Hospital Venous Thromboembolism and Prognosis After Emergent Ventral Hernia Repair. Risk Factors for Refractory Anaphylaxis in the Emergency Department. Assessment of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Knowledge Among Physicians in the Pediatrics Department of an Urban Tertiary Referral Hospital in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. YouTube as a Source of Information in Trauma Management for ATLS (10th Edition) Guidelines: Evaluation of Trauma Management Videos on YouTube. Comparison Between the Advanced Cardiac Life Support and Adult Advanced Life Support Protocols: A Simulation-Based Pilot Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1