Application evaluation of prefabricated rigid connecting bar in implants immediate impression preparation of edentulous jaw / 北京大学学报(医学版)

OBJECTIVE@#To compare the operation complexity and accuracy of traditional splint impression technique and impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system for full-arch implants-supported fixed protheses in vitro.@*METHODS@#Standard mandibular edentulous model with six implant analogs was prepared. The implants were placed at the bone level and multiunit abutments screwed into the implants. Two impression techniques were performed: the traditional splint impression technique was used in the control group, and the rigid connecting bar system was used in the test group. In the control group, impression copings were screwed into the multiunit abutments and connected with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Open tray impression was fabricated with custom tray and polyether. In the test group, cylinders were screwed into the multiunit abutments. Prefabricated rigid bars with suitable length were selected and connected to the cylinders with small amount of autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and open tray impression was obtained. Impression procedures were repeated 6 times in each group. The working time of the two impression methods were recorded and compared. Analogs were screws into the impressions and gypsum casts were poured. The gypsum casts and the standard model were transferred to stereolithography (STL) files with model scanner. Comparative analysis of the STL files of the gypsum casts and the standard model was carried out and the root mean square (RMS) error value of the gypsum casts of the control and test groups compared with the standard model was recorded. The trueness of the two impression techniques was compared.@*RESULTS@#The work time in the test group was significantly lower than that in the control group and the difference was statistically significant [(984.5±63.3) s vs. (1 478.3±156.2) s, P < 0.05]. Compared with the standard model, the RMS error value of the implant abutments in the test group was (16.9±5.5) μm. The RMS value in the control group was (20.2±8.0) μm. The difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05).@*CONCLUSION@#The prefabricated rigid connecting bar can save the chair-side work time in implants immediate loading of edentulous jaw and simplify the impression process. The impression accuracy is not significantly different from the traditional impression technology. The impression technique with prefabricated rigid connecting bar system is worthy of clinical application.

Clinical classification and treatment decision of implant fracture / 北京大学学报(医学版)

OBJECTIVE@#To propose a set of two-dimensional clinical classification of fractured implants based on the follow-up of fracturing pattern of implant body and peri-implant bone defect morphology of 32 fractrued implants, and summarize the treatment decisions of fractured implants according to this new set of classification, so as to provide guidance for clinical practice.@*METHODS@#During 25 years of clinical practice, clinical records of 27 patients of 32 fractured implants in 5 481 patients with 10 642 implants were made. The fracturing pattern of implant body, implant design, peri-implant bone defect morphology and treatment options were analyzed. A set of two-dimensional clinical classification based on the morphology and bone absorption of implant fracture was proposed. The treatment decision-making scheme based on the new classification of implant fracture was discussed.@*RESULTS@#In the new classification system, vertical fracture of implant neck (Type 1 of implant fracture morphology, F1) and horizontal fracture of implant neck (Type 2 of implant fracture morphology, F2) were common, accounting for 50% and 40.6% respectively, while deep horizontal fracture of implant body (Type 3 of implant fracture morphology, F3) (9.4%) were rare, while the three types of bone defects (D1, no bone defect or narrow infrabony defects; D2, wide 4-wall bone defects or cup-like defects, D3, wide 3-wall or 2-wall defects) around implants were evenly distributed. In the two-dimensional classification system of implant fracture, F1D1 (31.3%) and F2D2 (25%) were the most frequent. There was a significant positive correlation between F1 and D1 (r=0.592, P < 0.001), a significant positive correlation between F2 and D2 (r=0.352, P=0.048), and a significant negative correlation between F1 and D2 (r=-0.465, P=0.007). The most common treatment for implant fracture was implant removal + guided bone regeneration(GBR) + delayed implant (65.6%), followed by implant removal + simultaneous implant (18.8%). F1D1 type was significantly related to the treatment strategy of implant removal + simultaneous implantation (r=0.367, P=0.039). On this basis, the decision tree of implant fracture treatment was summarized.@*CONCLUSION@#The new two-dimensional classification of implant fracture is suitable for clinical application, and can provide guidance and reference for clinical treatment of implant fracture.