Esposito Marco, Cannizzaro Gioacchino, Barausse Carlo, Cosci Ferdinando, Soardi Elisa, Felice Pietro
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7(2):129-37.
To compare the effectiveness of two different techniques to lift the maxillary sinus via a crestal approach: the Summers versus the Cosci technique.
Fifteen partially edentulous patients missing bilaterally maxillary molars and/ or premolars, having 4 to 7 mm of residual crestal height and at least 5 mm thickness below the maxillary sinuses measured on CT scans, were randomised to have implants placed in sinuses crestally lifted according to the Cosci or the Summers techniques, with bone substitutes according to a split-mouth design. Implants were left to heal submerged for 6 months. Implants were loaded with acrylic provisional crowns/prostheses. Screw-retained definitive metal-ceramic prostheses were delivered 4 months after provisional loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures; any complications; operation time; operator preference; patient preference and peri-implant marginal bone level changes assessed by a blinded outcome assessor. All patients were followed to 3 years after implant loading.
Nineteen study implants were placed according to each technique. Three years after loading, 3 patients dropped out and no implant failed. No discomfort/complications occurred at sites treated with the Cosci technique, whereas 12 patients reported discomfort during the augmentation procedure at the side treated with the Summers technique; this was statistically significant (P = 0.0005). In one of these patients, a perforation of the sinus membrane occurred. Postoperatively, headache was reported by 9 patients and swelling occurred in 3 of these patients at the Summers treated sides. Statistically significant less time (9.7 mins, SD = 4.0, P < 0.001, 95% CI -11.9 to -7.5) was required to place implants according to the Cosci technique (33 versus 24 mins on average). The 2 operators and 14 out of 15 patients preferred the Cosci technique 1 month after surgery (P = 0.001), and 1 year after surgery (13 out of 15 patients, P = 0.007). The ceramic layer of one prosthesis of the Summers' group and one abutment screw of the Cosci's group loosened between 1 to 3 years post-loading. After 3 years, implants inserted according to the Cosci technique lost 1.39 mm of peri-implant bone versus 1.54 mm for the implants placed with the Summers technique. There were no statistically significant differences for marginal bone level changes between the two groups (difference 0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.41, P = 0.24).
Both crestal sinus lift techniques produced successful results over a 3-year follow-up period, but the Cosci technique required less surgical time, determined less intra- and postoperative morbidity and was preferred by patients. Conflict of interest statement: This was an investigator-initiated trial, however the trial was partially supported by Zimmer Dental Italy, Vittorio Veneto (TV), Italy. One of the authors (Dr Cosci), who treated 8 patients in this study, is the inventor of the Cosci technique and his partipation was a prerequisite of the sponsor to support the trial.
比较两种不同的经牙槽嵴顶入路上颌窦提升技术的有效性:萨默斯技术与科斯基技术。
15例双侧上颌磨牙和/或前磨牙缺失的部分无牙颌患者,CT扫描显示牙槽嵴顶剩余高度为4至7毫米,上颌窦下方至少有5毫米厚度,根据分口设计,随机分为两组,分别采用科斯基技术或萨默斯技术经牙槽嵴顶提升上颌窦并植入种植体,同时使用骨替代材料。种植体埋入愈合6个月。用丙烯酸临时冠/假体加载种植体。临时加载4个月后交付螺丝固位的最终金属烤瓷假体。观察指标包括:假体和种植体失败情况;任何并发症;手术时间;术者偏好;患者偏好以及由盲法结果评估者评估的种植体周围边缘骨水平变化。所有患者在种植体加载后随访3年。
每种技术各植入19颗研究种植体。加载3年后,3例患者退出研究,无种植体失败。采用科斯基技术治疗的部位未出现不适/并发症,而12例患者报告在采用萨默斯技术治疗侧的增量手术过程中出现不适;这具有统计学意义(P = 0.0005)。其中1例患者发生了窦膜穿孔。术后,9例患者报告在采用萨默斯技术治疗侧出现头痛,其中3例出现肿胀。采用科斯基技术植入种植体所需时间显著更少(9.7分钟,标准差 = 4.0,P < 0.001,95%可信区间 -11.9至 -7.5)(平均33分钟对24分钟)。术后1个月,2名术者和15例患者中的14例更倾向于科斯基技术(P = 0.001),术后1年(15例患者中的13例,P = 0.007)也是如此。加载后1至3年,萨默斯组的1个假体的陶瓷层和科斯基组的1个基台螺丝松动。3年后,采用科斯基技术植入的种植体周围骨丧失1.39毫米,而采用萨默斯技术植入的种植体为1.54毫米。两组之间边缘骨水平变化无统计学显著差异(差异0.15毫米,95%可信区间 -0.11至0.41,P = 0.24)。
在3年的随访期内,两种牙槽嵴顶上颌窦提升技术均取得了成功的结果,但科斯基技术所需手术时间更少,术中及术后发病率更低,且更受患者青睐。利益冲突声明:这是一项研究者发起的试验,但该试验部分由意大利维托里奥威尼托的Zimmer Dental Italy资助。本研究中治疗8例患者的作者之一(科斯基医生)是科斯基技术的发明者,他的参与是赞助商支持该试验的前提条件。