CLINICAL EFFECTS OF BONE AUGMENTATION TECHNOLOGY FOR IMPLANT RESTORATION IN ATHLETIC PATIENTS WITH MISSING MAXILLARY ANTERIOR TEETH

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to analyze the clinical outcomes of bone augmentation technology for implant restoration in athletic patients with missing maxillary anterior teeth and analyze its application values. Methods: The subjects of this study were 168 individuals who presented to our hospital between March 2018 and February 2020 and were missing all four of their upper front teeth (maxillary anterior teeth). Bone augmentation technology was used to restore implants in the study's participants, while the athletic patients in the control group were treated with conventional implant restoration. Moreover, the researchers randomly divided into a research group and a control group, with 84 athletic patients in each group. All athletic patients in the study group and the control group had their demographic information recorded, including gender, age and the location of missing maxillary anterior teeth; the implant restoration effects in the research group and the control group were compared at 3, 6 months and 2 years after restoration; six months after receiving an implant restoration, athletic patients in the study group and the control group were polled about their level of satisfaction with the procedure; Belser white aesthetic scores (WES) and Furhauser pink aesthetic score (PES) were scored at 3, 6 months and 2 years of implant restoration in the research group and the control group to compare the aesthetic effects; Comparison of the research group to the control group was used to establish the complication rate; the restoration effects were better in the research group than in the control group after 3, 6, and 2 years after implant restoration (P 0.05). The participants in the research study identified nine distinct patterns of marginal bone resorption surrounding the implants that met their criteria for success. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the study group and the control group in terms of gender, age, or the position of the missing maxillary anterior teeth. This was determined by comparing the two groups' demographic information. (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the research group and the control group in terms of restoration outcomes three and six months after implant restoration. (P > 0.05); At two years’ post-implant restoration, the restoration effect of the study group was statistically significantly superior than that of the control group (P <0.05). Athletic Patients in the study group reported a greater level of subjective satisfaction (97.62%) compared to those in the control group (88.10%). (P >< 0.05). At 3, 6, and 2 years after restoration, the PES and Wes scores of the research group were higher than those of the control group. (P < 0.05). Complication rates in the study group were 3.57 percent, significantly lower than the 13.10 percent seen in the comparison group. (P < 0.05). At 3, 6, and 2 years after restoration, bone resorption at the implant margin was less in the study group than in the control group. (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Bone augmentation technology has a high success rate of implant restoration, which can not only help to restore the dental function of athletic patients with missing maxillary anterior teeth, maintain the beautiful color of teeth, reduce the amount of bone resorption of implant margin, in addition to enhancing patient contentment and decreasing complication rates with missing maxillary anterior teeth, which has clinical popularization and a high application value.