论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨口腔种植修复和常规修复在牙列缺损治疗中的疗效。方法:选取2015年2月至2016年2月我院收治的92例牙列缺损患者,按照随机的原则平均分成观察组和对照组,对照组实施常规修复方法,观察组采用口腔种植修复方法,对比两种方法治疗的效果。结果:观察组有效率为93.48%,对照组有效率为77.78%,观察组明显高于对照组(P<0.05),有统计学意义;治疗后观察组各功能评分明显高于对照组(P<0.05),有统计学意义;观察组并发症发生率为8.70%,对照组并发症发生率为21.74%,两组对比差异明显(P<0.05),有统计学意义。结论:对于牙列缺损患者,采用口腔种植修复方法进行治疗取得的临床疗效明显优于采用常规修复方法取得的临床效果,并且并发症比较少,值得在临床上推广和应用。
Objective: To investigate the effect of oral implants and routine repair on dentition defect. Methods: Totally 92 patients with dentition defect admitted in our hospital from February 2015 to February 2016 were randomly divided into observation group and control group according to the principle of randomization. The control group was given routine repair method, and the observation group was treated with oral implant repair method. Contrast the effect of the two methods of treatment. Results: The effective rate was 93.48% in the observation group and 77.78% in the control group, which was significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (P <0.05), and the scores of the functional groups in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group <0.05). The incidence of complications in the observation group was 8.70% and that in the control group was 21.74%. There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05), which was statistically significant. Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of oral implant repair is better than that of the conventional repair method in dentition defect patients, and the complication is less, so it is worth to be popularized and applied clinically.