植牙与天然牙感觉反应的体内比较分析

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Rafiullah Bashiri, Allyn Luke, Saul Weiner
{"title":"植牙与天然牙感觉反应的体内比较分析","authors":"Rafiullah Bashiri,&nbsp;Allyn Luke,&nbsp;Saul Weiner","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare subjects' sensory responses to horizontal and vertical forces on tooth- and implant-supported restorations. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> In this prospective study, three protocols simulating the horizontal or vertical forces that occur during mastication were used to obtain subjective responses from subjects. These protocols included the measurement of horizontal force intensity during excursive movements and the identification of initial contact during guided and free vertical closure. Responses were recorded using a 1- to 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and/ or monitored with electromyography (EMG) and Tekscan. <b>Results:</b> The study included 30 patients with a single implant-supported restoration (ISR) with a contralateral tooth-supported restoration (TSR). For horizontal forces similar to those of mastication (0.6 N), subject VAS scores were similar for both ISRs and TSRs at 6.3 vs 6.1, respectively. At reduced forces (0.2 and 0.4 N), subject responses were greater for the TSR at 3.4 and 5.4, respectively, as opposed to 1.2 and 2.6 for ISR, respectively (<i>P</i> < .01). During vertical guided closure (Test 1) at 25% of maximum bite force (MBF), subjects were more successful at correctly identifying initial contact of TSRs at a rate of 12 out of 17, compared to ISRs, which achieved a rate of 4 out of 13 (<i>P</i> < .1). In vertical free closure (Test 2), subject responses for the correct identification of initial contact at 50% MBF were similar for both TSRs and ISRs at 13 out of 17 and 9 out of 13, respectively. However, comparing the correct responses for subjects whose initial contacts were ISR showed a significant improvement in correct answers from Test 1 to Test 2, from 4 out of 13 correct to 9 out of 13 correct (<i>P</i> < .05). <b>Conclusion:</b> While the mechanism is not clear, subjects' ability to discern the horizontal and vertical forces at levels comparable to mastication appear similar between TSRs and ISRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 2","pages":"321-327"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Sensory Responses from Dental Implants vs Natural Teeth: An In Vivo Study.\",\"authors\":\"Rafiullah Bashiri,&nbsp;Allyn Luke,&nbsp;Saul Weiner\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare subjects' sensory responses to horizontal and vertical forces on tooth- and implant-supported restorations. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> In this prospective study, three protocols simulating the horizontal or vertical forces that occur during mastication were used to obtain subjective responses from subjects. These protocols included the measurement of horizontal force intensity during excursive movements and the identification of initial contact during guided and free vertical closure. Responses were recorded using a 1- to 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and/ or monitored with electromyography (EMG) and Tekscan. <b>Results:</b> The study included 30 patients with a single implant-supported restoration (ISR) with a contralateral tooth-supported restoration (TSR). For horizontal forces similar to those of mastication (0.6 N), subject VAS scores were similar for both ISRs and TSRs at 6.3 vs 6.1, respectively. At reduced forces (0.2 and 0.4 N), subject responses were greater for the TSR at 3.4 and 5.4, respectively, as opposed to 1.2 and 2.6 for ISR, respectively (<i>P</i> < .01). During vertical guided closure (Test 1) at 25% of maximum bite force (MBF), subjects were more successful at correctly identifying initial contact of TSRs at a rate of 12 out of 17, compared to ISRs, which achieved a rate of 4 out of 13 (<i>P</i> < .1). In vertical free closure (Test 2), subject responses for the correct identification of initial contact at 50% MBF were similar for both TSRs and ISRs at 13 out of 17 and 9 out of 13, respectively. However, comparing the correct responses for subjects whose initial contacts were ISR showed a significant improvement in correct answers from Test 1 to Test 2, from 4 out of 13 correct to 9 out of 13 correct (<i>P</i> < .05). <b>Conclusion:</b> While the mechanism is not clear, subjects' ability to discern the horizontal and vertical forces at levels comparable to mastication appear similar between TSRs and ISRs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"321-327\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9553\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9553","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较受试者对牙齿和种植体支撑修复体的水平和垂直力的感觉反应。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性研究中,采用模拟咀嚼过程中发生的水平或垂直力的三种方案来获得受试者的主观反应。这些方案包括测量横向运动时的水平力强度,以及确定引导和自由垂直闭合时的初始接触。用1到10分的视觉模拟量表(VAS)记录反应,并/或用肌电图(EMG)和Tekscan进行监测。结果:本研究包括30例采用单种植体支持修复(ISR)和对侧牙支持修复(TSR)的患者。对于与咀嚼力相似的水平力(0.6 N), isr和tsr的受试者VAS评分分别为6.3和6.1。在减小作用力(0.2和0.4 N)时,受试者对TSR的反应分别为3.4和5.4,而对ISR的反应分别为1.2和2.6 (P < 0.01)。在25%最大咬合力(MBF)的垂直引导闭合(测试1)中,与ISRs相比,受试者在正确识别TSRs的初始接触率方面更成功,为12 / 17,而ISRs的初始接触率为4 / 13 (P < 0.1)。在垂直自由闭合(测试2)中,在50% MBF时,tsr和isr对正确识别初次接触的反应相似,分别为13 / 17和9 / 13。然而,比较初次接触ISR的受试者的正确答案,从测试1到测试2的正确答案有显著提高,从13个正确率中的4个提高到13个正确率中的9个(P < 0.05)。结论:虽然机制尚不清楚,但tsr和isr受试者在咀嚼水平上辨别水平和垂直力的能力相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Sensory Responses from Dental Implants vs Natural Teeth: An In Vivo Study.

Purpose: To compare subjects' sensory responses to horizontal and vertical forces on tooth- and implant-supported restorations. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, three protocols simulating the horizontal or vertical forces that occur during mastication were used to obtain subjective responses from subjects. These protocols included the measurement of horizontal force intensity during excursive movements and the identification of initial contact during guided and free vertical closure. Responses were recorded using a 1- to 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and/ or monitored with electromyography (EMG) and Tekscan. Results: The study included 30 patients with a single implant-supported restoration (ISR) with a contralateral tooth-supported restoration (TSR). For horizontal forces similar to those of mastication (0.6 N), subject VAS scores were similar for both ISRs and TSRs at 6.3 vs 6.1, respectively. At reduced forces (0.2 and 0.4 N), subject responses were greater for the TSR at 3.4 and 5.4, respectively, as opposed to 1.2 and 2.6 for ISR, respectively (P < .01). During vertical guided closure (Test 1) at 25% of maximum bite force (MBF), subjects were more successful at correctly identifying initial contact of TSRs at a rate of 12 out of 17, compared to ISRs, which achieved a rate of 4 out of 13 (P < .1). In vertical free closure (Test 2), subject responses for the correct identification of initial contact at 50% MBF were similar for both TSRs and ISRs at 13 out of 17 and 9 out of 13, respectively. However, comparing the correct responses for subjects whose initial contacts were ISR showed a significant improvement in correct answers from Test 1 to Test 2, from 4 out of 13 correct to 9 out of 13 correct (P < .05). Conclusion: While the mechanism is not clear, subjects' ability to discern the horizontal and vertical forces at levels comparable to mastication appear similar between TSRs and ISRs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786 ISSN (Online): 1942-4434 This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信