Pjetursson Bjarni E, Rast Claude, Brägger Urs, Schmidlin Kurt, Zwahlen Marcel, Lang Niklaus P
Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jul;20(7):667-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01704.x. Epub 2009 May 26.
To analyze the survival and success rates of implants installed utilizing the (transalveolar) osteotome technique, to compare peri-implant soft tissue parameters and marginal bone levels of osteotome-installed implants with implants placed using standard surgical procedures, and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes.
During 2000 to 2005, 252 Straumann dental implants were inserted in 181 patients. The surgical technique was a modification of the original osteotome technique presented by Summers. In addition to the clinical examination, the patients were asked to give their perception of the surgical procedure, utilizing a visual analogue scale.
The cumulative survival rate of the osteotome-installed implants after a mean follow-up time of 3.2 years, was 97.4% (95% confidence intervals: 94.4-98.8%). From the 252 implants inserted, three were lost before loading and another three were lost in the first and second year. According to residual bone height the survival was 91.3% for implant sites with < or =4 mm residual bone height, and 90% for sites with 4 mm and 5 mm, when compared with that of 100% in sites with bone height of above 5 mm. According to implant length the survival rates were 100% for 12 mm, 98.7% for 10 mm, 98.7% for 8 mm and only 47.6% for 6 mm implants. Soft tissue parameters (pocket probing depth, probing attachment level, bleeding on probing and marginal bone levels) did not yield any differences between the osteotome-installed and the conventionally placed implants. More than 90% of the patients were satisfied with the implant therapy and would undergo similar therapy again if necessary. The cost associated with implant therapy was considered to be justified.
In conclusion, the osteotome technique was a reliable method for implant insertion in the posterior maxilla, especially at sites with 5 mm or more of preoperative residual bone height and a relatively flat sinus floor.
分析采用(经牙槽嵴)骨凿技术植入种植体的生存率和成功率,比较骨凿植入种植体与采用标准手术程序植入种植体的种植体周围软组织参数和边缘骨水平,并评估以患者为中心的结果。
2000年至2005年期间,在181例患者中植入了252枚士卓曼牙科种植体。手术技术是对Summers提出的原始骨凿技术的改良。除临床检查外,还要求患者使用视觉模拟量表对手术过程发表看法。
平均随访3.2年后,骨凿植入种植体的累积生存率为97.4%(95%置信区间:94.4 - 98.8%)。在植入的252枚种植体中,有3枚在加载前丢失,另外3枚在第一年和第二年丢失。根据剩余骨高度,剩余骨高度≤4mm的种植位点生存率为91.3%,4 - 5mm的位点生存率为90%,而骨高度>5mm的位点生存率为100%。根据种植体长度,12mm种植体的生存率为100%,10mm为98.7%,8mm为98.7%,6mm种植体仅为47.6%。软组织参数(袋探诊深度、探诊附着水平、探诊出血和边缘骨水平)在骨凿植入种植体和传统植入种植体之间没有差异。超过90%的患者对种植治疗满意,如有必要会再次接受类似治疗。认为种植治疗的成本是合理的。
总之,骨凿技术是在上颌后部植入种植体的可靠方法,特别是在术前剩余骨高度为5mm或更多且窦底相对平坦的位点。