Suppr超能文献

无瓣与传统牙种植手术:一项开放性回顾性对照研究。

Flapless and traditional dental implant surgery: an open, retrospective comparative study.

作者信息

Rousseau Paul

机构信息

Department of Oral Surgery, Chirurgie Orale, Paris, France.

出版信息

J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Sep;68(9):2299-306. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.031.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Osseointegrated dental implantation is traditionally performed by a flap approach that involves soft tissue flap reflection, but this technique is associated with several drawbacks. Conversely, the flapless method requires only minimal removal of soft tissue but is not suitable for all patients. The objective of this study was to compare the flapless (FL) method of implant placement with the traditional flap (TR) method with regard to achievement of success, change in bone level, and overall safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this single-center, open, retrospective, investigator-driven, nonrandomized, comparative study, patients were pre- or intraoperatively assigned to the FL or TR treatment. The primary success criteria were the absence of mobility, radiolucency, pain, and infection.

RESULTS

The FL method was applied to 174 implants (46%) in 121 patients and the TR method to 203 implants (54%) in 98 patients. At visit 1, implantation was rated successful in 171/174 (98.3%) implants with the FL method and in 200/203 (98.5%) with the TR method. Success rate remained constant until visit 2. The difference between the 2 groups in the rate of success was not significant. Similarly, no significant difference was observed for mean time to last follow-up for success.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on pre- or intraoperative decision-making, patients eligible for FL surgery can benefit from a less straining procedure without affecting the high success rate of dental implant surgery. The FL approach is a predictable procedure when patient selection and surgical technique are appropriate.

摘要

目的

骨结合牙种植传统上通过翻瓣术进行,该方法涉及软组织瓣翻起,但这种技术存在几个缺点。相反,不翻瓣方法仅需要最少的软组织切除,但并不适用于所有患者。本研究的目的是比较不翻瓣(FL)种植体植入方法与传统翻瓣(TR)方法在成功率、骨水平变化和总体安全性方面的差异。

患者和方法

在这项单中心、开放、回顾性、研究者主导、非随机、对照研究中,患者在术前或术中被分配至FL或TR治疗组。主要成功标准为无松动、透射影、疼痛和感染。

结果

FL方法应用于121例患者的174枚种植体(46%),TR方法应用于98例患者的203枚种植体(54%)。在第1次随访时,FL方法植入的174枚种植体中有171枚(98.3%)被评为成功,TR方法植入的203枚种植体中有200枚(98.5%)被评为成功。直到第2次随访时成功率保持不变。两组成功率之间的差异无统计学意义。同样,末次随访成功的平均时间在两组间也无显著差异。

结论

基于术前或术中决策,适合FL手术的患者可从创伤较小的手术中获益,而不影响牙种植手术的高成功率。当患者选择和手术技术合适时,FL方法是一种可预测的手术。

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