基于微球扩散法测量基台微缝隙的最大宽度研究

›› 2019, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (1): 6-9.

基于微球扩散法测量基台微缝隙的最大宽度研究

朱文忠¹,张春宝²,越野³,宋鑫磊⁴

1. 陕西省第二人民医院
2. 第四军医大学口腔医院
3. 第四军医大学
4. 外洋螺医院口腔科

收稿日期:2017-11-03 修回日期:2017-12-20 出版日期:2019-01-28 发布日期:2019-01-28
通讯作者: 张春宝 E-mail:294127055@qq.com

Study on the maximum width of the micro slit based on the microsphere diffusion method

Received:2017-11-03 Revised:2017-12-20 Online:2019-01-28 Published:2019-01-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的利用电镜测量法验证微球扩散法的可行性和精确性；同时使用该法测量并比较4种不同种植体-基台在不同水平载荷作用下微缝隙的大小。方法离体构建4种种植体-基台微缝隙模型（A组：Anatomic全瓷基台；B组：SynOcta内八角钛基台；C组：Procera钛基底全瓷基台；D组：Procera全瓷基台），在种植体内放入聚苯乙烯微球乳液（粒径0.2~5.0 μm），同时给各组基台以不同的水平向载荷（0、50、100、150 N），使用激光粒度仪检测扩散通过微缝隙的最大微球直径，记为微缝隙的最大宽度。同时记录测得该最大宽度所需的扩散时间。另一方面，使用扫描电镜测量每个模型的8个观测点的微缝隙宽度，取最大值。比较两种检测方法的差异。结果 ①微球扩散法和电镜测量法对于微缝隙宽度的检测精度无统计学差异（P＜0.05）；②微球扩散法检测微缝隙宽度最多耗时15 min；③无外力载荷时，A、D组微缝隙显著大于B、C组（P＜0.05）；④B、C组，100 N和150 N载荷的微缝隙大于0 N（P＜0.05）；150 N载荷的微缝隙大于50 N（P＜0.05）。结论微球扩散法可简便、高效、准确地测量种植体-基台间微缝隙的最大宽度。无载荷条件下，种植体-全瓷界面的微缝隙显著大于种植体-钛界面的微缝隙；在较大的水平载荷作用下，种植体-钛界面微缝隙会显著增大。

关键词: 聚苯乙烯, 微球, 扩散, 种植体-基台, 微缝隙

Abstract: Objective To verify the feasibility and accuracy of the microsphere diffusion method by the method of electron microscopy; meanwhile, to measure and compare the four different micro-gaps of the four different implant-abutments stressed by different horizontal loads. Method Four kinds of implant based micro-gap models were constructed in vitro (Group A: Anatomic all ceramic abutment; Group B: SynOcta octagonal titanium base; Group C: Procera titanium base all ceramic abutment; Group D: Procera all ceramic abutment, Polystyrene microspheres were added into the implants (0.2-5 μm). At the same time, the different horizontal loads (0, 50, 100, 150 N) were given. The maximum particle size of micro diffusion was measured by laser particle size analyzer. At the same time, the time required to measure the maximum width was recorded. On the other hand, scanning electron microscopy was used to measure the width of the slit of the 8 observation points of each slit model, and the maximum value was obtained. The differences between the two methods were analyzed by t test. Results ①There was no significant difference in the accuracy of the micro slit width between the microspheres diffusion method and the electron microscope (P<0.05). ②Micro diffusion method to detect micro slit width took up to 15 minutes. ③When there was no external load, the micor-gaps of A and D groups were significantly larger than B, C groups (P<0.05). ④In B, C groups, 100N and 150 N load micro-gaps were significantly greater than 0 N (P<0.05); 150 N load of micro-gap was significantly greater than 50 N (P<0.05). Conclusion Microsphere diffusion method is simple, efficient and accurate to measure the maximum width of micro-gap between implant and abutment. The result of the experiment shows that the micro-gap of the implant-procelain interface is significantly larger than that of the implant-titanium interface, meanwhile, the micro-gap of the implant-titanium interface will increase significantly when stressed by the larger horizontal loads.

Key words: Polystyrene, Microspheres, Diffusion, Implant-abutment, Microgap

中图分类号:

R783.3

朱文忠张春宝越野宋鑫磊. 基于微球扩散法测量基台微缝隙的最大宽度研究[J]. , 2019, 39(1): 6-9.

参考文献

[1] Saidin?S,?Abdul?Kadir?MR,?Sulaiman?E,?et?al.?Effects?of?different?implant-abutment?connections?on?micro-motion?and?stress?distribution:?prediction?of?micro-gap?formation[J].?J?Dent,?2012,?40(6):467-474.
[2] Cochran D L, Mau L P, Higginbottom F L, et al. Soft and hard tissue histologic dimensions around dental implants in the canine restored with smaller-diameter abutments: a paradigm shift in peri-implant biology.[J]. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2013, 28(2):494.
[3] 王永亮, 杨建军, 孙桂兰,等. 氧化锆基台研制及其与种植体连接界面适合性研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2010, 3(1):30-32.
[4] 强河山, 张敏, 陈钢. 不同连接方式种植体-基台界面细菌微渗漏的比较研究[J]. 口腔材料器械杂志, 2015, 24(3):138-141.
[5] 方巍. 牙种植体-基台界面微渗漏的实验研究[C]// 中华口腔医学会第14次全国口腔医学学术会议. 2012.
[6] 吴春锋. 氧化锆瓷基台与种植体内连接优化设计的有限元分析[D]. 第四军医大学, 2015.
[7] O’Mahony?A,?MacNeill?SR,?Cobb?CM.?Design?features?that?may?influence?bacterial?plaque?retention:?a retrospective?analysis?of?failed?implants[J].?Quin-tessence?Int,?2000,?31(4):249-256.
[8] Solá-Ruíz? MF,? Selva-Otaolaurruchi? E,? Senent-Vicente?G,?et?al.?Accuracy?combining?different?brands?of?implants?and?abutments[J].?Med?Oral?Patol?Oral Cir?Bucal,?2013,?18(2):e332-e336.
[9] 李洁. 聚苯乙烯微球的粒径控制制备及工程化研究[D]. 扬州大学, 2014.
[10] 郭研, 王轶. 布朗运动与动态光散射法表征粒子粒径[J]. 长春工程学院学报(自然科学版), 2007, 8(4):86-88.
[11] New Mastersizer 3000[J]. Focus on Powder Coatings, 2012, 2012(1):6-6.
[12] Baldassarri M, Hjerppe J, Romeo D, et al. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2012, 27(3):537-543.
[13] Jansen V K, Conrads G, Richter E J. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface.[J]. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 1997, 12(4):527-540.
[14] Gross M, Abramovich I, Weiss E I. Microleakage at the abutment-implant interface of osseointegrated implants: a comparative study.[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1999, 14(14):94-100.
[15]? Koo K T, Lee E J, Kim J Y, et al. The effect of internal versus external abutment connection modes on crestal bone changes around dental implants: a radiographic analysis[J]. Journal of Periodontology, 2012, 83(83):1104-1109.
[16] Weng D, Nagata M J, Bell M, et al. Influence of microgap location and configuration on peri-implant bone morphology in nonsubmerged implants: an experimental study in dogs.[J]. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2011, 24(5):445-452.