Suppr超能文献

上颌窦提升术中的截骨术和黏膜剥离。一项比较研究:压电装置与传统旋转器械。

Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. A comparative study: piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments.

作者信息

Barone Antonio, Santini Stefano, Marconcini Simone, Giacomelli Luca, Gherlone Enrico, Covani Ugo

机构信息

Unit of Oral Pathology and Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

出版信息

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 May;19(5):511-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01498.x. Epub 2008 Mar 26.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate in a randomized-controlled clinical trial the performance of rotary instruments compared with a piezoelectric device during maxillary sinus floor elevation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen patients who required a bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation were included in this study. A within-patient control study was carried out. The osteotomy for sinus access was performed on one side of the maxilla using the piezosurgery (test sites) and on the other side using conventional rotary diamond burs (control sites). The parameters recorded were as follows: bony window length (L), bony window height (H), bone thickness (T) and osteotomy area (A)--calculated by multiplying L and H. In addition, the time necessary for the osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation as well as the number of surgical complications were calculated.

RESULTS

The mean length and height of the bone window were similar in both groups. The osteotomy area (A) obtained by multiplying L and H was wider in the control group (151.2 +/- 20.4 mm(2)) compared with the test group (137 +/- 24.2 mm(2)). The time necessary for the osteotomy and the sinus membrane elevation with conventional instruments was 10.2 +/- 2.4 min, while with the piezoelectric device it was 11.5 +/- 3.8 min. Moreover, membrane perforation occurred in 30% of the maxillary sinuses in the test group and in 23% of the control group. None of the differences observed between the two groups reached a level of significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that piezosurgery and conventional instruments did not show any differences in the clinical parameters investigated for the maxillary sinus floor elevation.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在通过一项随机对照临床试验,调查在上颌窦底提升术中旋转器械与压电装置的性能。

材料与方法

本研究纳入了13例需要进行双侧上颌窦增高以进行种植修复的患者。进行了患者内对照研究。在上颌骨的一侧使用压电手术(测试部位)进行鼻窦开窗截骨术,在另一侧使用传统旋转金刚砂车针(对照部位)。记录的参数如下:骨窗长度(L)、骨窗高度(H)、骨厚度(T)和截骨面积(A)——通过L和H相乘计算得出。此外,计算了截骨术和提升鼻窦黏膜所需的时间以及手术并发症的数量。

结果

两组的骨窗平均长度和高度相似。对照组通过L和H相乘得到的截骨面积(A)(151.2±20.4 mm²)比测试组(137±24.2 mm²)更宽。使用传统器械进行截骨术和提升鼻窦黏膜所需的时间为10.2±2.4分钟,而使用压电装置则为11.5±3.8分钟。此外,测试组30%的上颌窦出现了黏膜穿孔,对照组为23%。两组之间观察到的差异均未达到显著水平。

结论

在本研究的范围内,可以得出结论,压电手术和传统器械在上颌窦底提升术所研究的临床参数方面没有显示出任何差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验