上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2018, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (4): 360-364.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2018.04.005

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

种植体与基台连接的微观形态学观察

李晓娜1, NIKOS Mattheos2   

  1. 1.大连市口腔医院 特诊科,辽宁 大连 116021;
    2.香港大学牙医学院 口腔修复科,香港 999077
  • 收稿日期:2017-11-27 修回日期:2017-12-27 出版日期:2018-08-25 发布日期:2018-10-09
  • 通讯作者: 李晓娜,E-mail: lixn0217@163.com
  • 作者简介:李晓娜（1973-）,女,博士,主任医师

Investigation of the micromorphological differences of the implant-abutment junction

LI Xiao-na1, NIKOS Mattheos2   

  1. 1. Special Clinic, Dalian Stomatological Hospital . Dalian 116021,Liaoning Province;
    2.Department of Oral Rehabilitation, College of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong SAR, China
  • Received:2017-11-27 Revised:2017-12-27 Online:2018-08-25 Published:2018-10-09

PDF (PC)

187

摘要： 目的: 对种植体与原厂基台及第三方基台连接组件形态学上的微观特征进行观察,探讨形态差异与潜在并发症之间可能的关系。方法: 3种基台(1个原厂装,2个来自第三方) 在规定扭矩下装配到Straumann RN种植体上,种植体基台连接单元经过一系列包埋等程序后切割形成剖面,对剖面进行打磨,对完成的试件进行扫描电镜观察。采用图像测量软件（Image J）对获得的图片进行校准测量,比较三者之间在接触长度及接触性质之间的差异,尤其是3个重要部位即肩部、内连接及螺纹处的差异。结果: 3个连接单元的所有被研究的接触面之间均存在一定的尺寸差异。3个单元中,种植体外肩部的紧密接触相似,但第三方基台内部连接的啮合,特别是抗旋转单元严重欠缺,其中1个第三方基台的螺丝啮合不良。结论: 与原装基台对比,第三方基台呈现出关键性的形态差异,横断面的几何学差异导致总体接触面积有很大不同。无论从质量上,还是数量上这种差异对修复体的长期稳定性均有可能产生严重影响。

关键词: 种植体, 基台, 连接, 微观形态学

Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the morphological micro-features of 3 commercially available implant-abutment joints, using compatible and original prosthetic components and to explore the correlation between the micromorphology and potential functional complications. METHODS: Three abutments (one original and two compatibles) were torqued on original Straumann RN implants, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The implant-abutment units were sliced in the microtome and photographed under different magnifications through a scanning electron microscope. Calibration measurements were conducted under magnification corresponding to the area under assessment. RESULTS: Major dimensional differences were identified between all studied contact areas of the three units. The tight contact in the implant shoulder was similar in all three units, but engagement of the internal connection and, in particular, the anti-rotation elements were seriously compromised in the compatible abutments. One compatible abutment demonstrated compromised engagement of the abutment screw as well. CONCLUSIONS: Compatible abutments can present critical morphological differences from the original ones. The differences in the cross-sectional geometry result in large differences in the overall contact areas, both in terms of quality and quantity which could have serious implications from the long-term stability of the prosthesis.

Key words: Implant, Abutment, Junction, Micromorphology

中图分类号: