背景和目的:由于越来越多的人获得这种类型的治疗,完全无牙弓的植入物康复越来越受欢迎。此外,新康复程序的开发可以应用于大多数临床病例,包括那些严重萎缩的患者。因此,本研究旨在评估种植修复手术后口颌系统可能发生的功能变化。材料与方法:本研究共接受63例患者。他们被分为第一对照组(齿状)组(CG)和第二研究组(无牙,SG).对于后者,30名患者接受了204个两级植入物,立即装载了临时假体。在假体固定时评估表面肌电图(EMG),而对于一些患者,它是在固定假体固定后六个月应用的,也是。这些补充调查的患者形成了三分之一,随访研究组(FSG)。所有评估均在紧咬和咀嚼过程中进行。获得的两个研究组的数据,SG和FSG,与对照组相比,CG。结果:在紧握和咀嚼期间,研究组与对照组之间的肌肉电活动无统计学差异(p>0.05)。此外,在同一研究组内没有差异,最初和六个月后。在随访组FSG中,右咬肌的静态和动态值之间仅有变化(p=0.008)。所有组的重叠系数偏差相似(p=0.086):对于CG,20.5%,中位数11.1(最小。0,最大值。104);对于SG,21.4%,中位数12.2(最小。0,最大值。103);对于FSG,36.1%,中位数26.9(min.0,最大值。160).这表明没有神经肌肉对假体的适应。结论:植入物-假体康复导致的EMG活动与齿状患者在放置固定的植入物支撑假体后立即相似。此外,所有评估参数的测量值在运行6个月后均未发生变化.这可能表明肌肉收缩能力立即恢复,没有必要随着时间的推移而适应。从肌肉适应和功能的角度来看,该研究为直接固定的植入物支撑假体的应用和可靠性提供了依据。
Background and Objectives: Implant rehabilitation of complete edentulous arches has become more and more popular because of the increased access of the population to this type of treatment. Furthermore, the development of new rehabilitation procedures can be applied in most clinical cases, including in those with severe atrophy. Hence, this study aimed to assess the functional changes that can occur in the stomatognathic system after implant rehabilitation procedures. Materials and Methods: A total of 63 patients were accepted in the study. They were divided into a first control (dentate) group (CG) and a second study group (edentulous, SG). For the latter, 30 patients received 204 two-stage implants immediately loaded with provisional prostheses. Surface electromyography (EMG) was assessed at the time of prostheses fixation, while for some patients it was applied six months after the fixation of the fixed prostheses, as well. These supplemental investigated patients formed a third, follow-up study group (FSG). All assessments were performed during the processes of clenching and mastication. The obtained data of the two study groups, SG and FSG, were compared with those of the control group, CG. Results: No statistical differences were found in the electrical muscular activity between the study and control groups during both clenching and mastication (p > 0.05). In addition, there were no differences within the same study group, both initially and after 6 months. The only changes were noticed between static and dynamic values for the right masseter muscle in the follow-up group FSG (p = 0.008). Deviations of the overlapping coefficients were similar for all groups (p = 0.086): for CG, 20.5%, median 11.1 (min. 0, max. 104); for SG, 21.4%, median 12.2 (min. 0, max. 103); for FSG, 36.1%, median 26.9 (min. 0, max. 160). This revealed no neuromuscular adaption to the prostheses. Conclusions: Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation led to an EMG activity that was similar to that of dentate patients immediately after the placement of the fixed implant-supported prostheses. Moreover, the measured values did not change after six months of functioning for all evaluated parameters. This may point to an immediate restoration of the muscle contraction capacity, without the necessity of adaptation over time. The study serves as an argument for the application and reliability of the immediate fixed implant-supported prostheses from the perspective of muscle adaptation and functioning.