本文選題：引導(dǎo)骨再生 + 膠原膜　； 參考：《南昌大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的:通過定性及定量研究海奧口腔修復(fù)膜和博特醫(yī)用膠原修復(fù)膜引導(dǎo)骨再生術(shù)后的成骨效果,為臨床國產(chǎn)屏障膜的推廣提供一定的參考。方法:按納入及排除標準選出符合需行引導(dǎo)骨再生種植修復(fù)患者120例,其中60例采用海奧口腔修復(fù)膜行引導(dǎo)骨再生術(shù)作為觀察組A,另60例采用博特醫(yī)用膠原修復(fù)膜行引導(dǎo)骨再生術(shù)作為觀察組B,兩組患者骨缺損區(qū)的骨移植材料均選用天博骨粉,通過觀察比較兩組患者術(shù)后的不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生率及種植體保存率,植骨厚度、成骨厚度、植骨高度、成骨高度、水平骨生長效果、垂直骨生長效果及成骨有效率來評估引導(dǎo)骨再生的成骨效果。結(jié)果:1、一期術(shù)后觀察組A有1例患者出現(xiàn)種植牙局部區(qū)域腫脹疼痛,觀察組B有2例患者出現(xiàn)種植牙局部區(qū)域腫脹疼痛,并有1例出現(xiàn)種植區(qū)域創(chuàng)口裂開,兩組患者不良發(fā)生率均較低(P≥0.05),且經(jīng)對癥治療后癥狀均消失,未發(fā)現(xiàn)種植體松動或脫落,所有患者組織愈合良好。一期術(shù)后4-6個月X線及臨床檢查未見異常。2、一期術(shù)后4-6個月,觀察組A成骨厚度、成骨高度、水平骨生長效果及垂直骨生長效果均顯著高于觀察組B(P≤0.01)。3、觀察組A和觀察組B引導(dǎo)骨再生后水平成骨有效率分別達98.33%和95%(P≥0.05),垂直成骨有效率分別達95%和91.67%(P≥0.05)。結(jié)論:1、海奧口腔修復(fù)膜和博特醫(yī)用膠原修復(fù)膜均可應(yīng)用于種植修復(fù)骨缺損的引導(dǎo)骨再生術(shù)中,術(shù)后不良反應(yīng)率低、種植體保存率高、成骨有效率高及成骨效果好,可起到屏障缺損區(qū)周圍的纖維結(jié)締組織,引導(dǎo)新骨的再生,重建缺損的骨組織。2、海奧口腔修復(fù)膜引導(dǎo)骨再生術(shù)后的成骨效果明顯優(yōu)于博特醫(yī)用膠原修復(fù)膜,值得推廣。
[Abstract]:Objective: to study the osteogenic effect of Hailao oral repair membrane and Botte medical collagen repair membrane after bone regeneration, and to provide some reference for the popularization of clinical barrier membrane. Methods: according to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 120 patients with guided bone regeneration were selected. Among them, 60 cases were treated by guided bone regeneration with Haile oral repair membrane as observation group, the other 60 cases were treated with Bot medical collagen repair membrane as observation group B, the bone graft materials of bone defect area of both groups were all made of Tianbo bone powder. The incidence of adverse reactions and the survival rate of implants, the thickness of bone graft, the height of osteogenesis and the effect of horizontal bone growth were observed and compared between the two groups. Vertical bone growth and osteogenic efficiency were used to evaluate the osteogenic effect of guided bone regeneration. Results one patient in observation group A had local swelling and pain in implant region, two patients in group B had swelling pain in local region of implant tooth, and one patient in group A had local swelling pain of implant tooth, and one patient in group B had fracture of implant area. The incidence of adverse events in the two groups was lower than that in the control group (P 鈮，

本文編號：1939302