Att Wael, Bernhart Jasmin, Strub Jörg Rudolf
Department of Prosthodontics, Albert-Ludwigs University School of Dentistry, Freiburg, Germany.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Nov;67(11 Suppl):60-73. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.007.
The aim of the present report was to describe the different treatment approaches available for fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla in the presence of varying hard and soft tissue conditions and to review the clinical outcome of each treatment approach.
A review of the published data published from 1980 through 2009 was conducted using electronic databases and manual searching to identify the treatment possibilities for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla and report their clinical outcomes. The search terms used, in simple or multiple conjunctions, were "fixed rehabilitation," "implants," "edentulous," "fixed dental prosthesis," "implant-supported," and "maxilla."
Several treatment modalities were identified for the fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla, with and without bone augmentation procedures. Regular, tilted, and zygoma implants were identified for treatment modalities that do not require bone augmentation. Sinus floor elevation with the lateral window technique or Le Fort I osteotomy with interpositional bone grafts was identified as a treatment possibility that required bone augmentation procedures. The database initially yielded 230 titles. Of the 230 studies, 42 were finally selected. Although all studies reported the survival rates of the implants, only 20 provided information about the prosthetic outcome. Because of the limited number of studies, at least for the specific treatment modalities, and the heterogeneity in the design of the different studies identified, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis of the data. Except for regular implants placed in native bone, no sufficient long-term clinical studies were found for the other procedures.
Except for regular implants placed in nonaugmented native bone, the published data provide insufficient evidence about the outcome of other procedures. Until long-term data are available, such procedures should not be considered reliable treatment modalities.
本报告旨在描述在存在不同软硬组织条件下,无牙上颌骨固定修复可用的不同治疗方法,并回顾每种治疗方法的临床结果。
使用电子数据库和手工检索对1980年至2009年发表的数据进行综述,以确定无牙上颌骨固定修复的治疗可能性并报告其临床结果。使用的检索词,以简单或多个连词组合,为“固定修复”、“种植体”、“无牙”、“固定义齿”、“种植体支持”和“上颌骨”。
确定了几种无牙上颌骨固定修复的治疗方式,包括有无骨增量手术。对于不需要骨增量的治疗方式,确定了常规种植体、倾斜种植体和颧骨种植体。外侧开窗技术提升窦底或Le Fort I截骨术并植入间置物被确定为需要骨增量手术的一种治疗可能性。数据库最初产生230个标题。在这230项研究中,最终选择了42项。尽管所有研究都报告了种植体的生存率,但只有20项提供了有关修复结果的信息。由于研究数量有限,至少对于特定的治疗方式,以及所确定的不同研究设计的异质性,无法对数据进行统计分析。除了植入天然骨的常规种植体,未发现其他手术有足够的长期临床研究。
除了植入未增量天然骨的常规种植体,已发表的数据提供的关于其他手术结果的证据不足。在获得长期数据之前,此类手术不应被视为可靠的治疗方式。