Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy
Objective. To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect. Methods. From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive s...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Emergency Medicine International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/9917311 |
| _version_ | 1797854702640037888 |
|---|---|
| author | Kefei Li Fang Liu Pan Liu Cuifang Wei Xue Li |
| author_facet | Kefei Li Fang Liu Pan Liu Cuifang Wei Xue Li |
| author_sort | Kefei Li |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective. To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect. Methods. From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared. Results. The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance (P<0.05). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance (P<0.05). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion. Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T20:11:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-eb51baaae3ba4fe28f86facebc2f0f24 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2090-2859 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T20:11:32Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Hindawi Limited |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Emergency Medicine International |
| spelling | doaj.art-eb51baaae3ba4fe28f86facebc2f0f242023-04-01T00:00:53ZengHindawi LimitedEmergency Medicine International2090-28592023-01-01202310.1155/2023/9917311Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant TherapyKefei Li0Fang Liu1Pan Liu2Cuifang Wei3Xue Li4Department of StomatologyDepartment of StomatologySchool of StomatologyDepartment of OrthopedicsDepartment of StomatologyObjective. To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect. Methods. From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared. Results. The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance (P<0.05). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance (P<0.05). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion. Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/9917311 |
| spellingShingle | Kefei Li Fang Liu Pan Liu Cuifang Wei Xue Li Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy Emergency Medicine International |
| title | Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy |
| title_full | Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy |
| title_fullStr | Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy |
| title_short | Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy |
| title_sort | clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant therapy |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/9917311 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kefeili clinicaleffectandaestheticevaluationofminimallyinvasiveimplanttherapy AT fangliu clinicaleffectandaestheticevaluationofminimallyinvasiveimplanttherapy AT panliu clinicaleffectandaestheticevaluationofminimallyinvasiveimplanttherapy AT cuifangwei clinicaleffectandaestheticevaluationofminimallyinvasiveimplanttherapy AT xueli clinicaleffectandaestheticevaluationofminimallyinvasiveimplanttherapy |