Suppr超能文献

自体骨块与异种骨用于牙种植体修复萎缩性颌骨:一项初步随机对照试验的初步数据

Blocks of autogenous bone versus xenografts for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants: preliminary data from a pilot randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Pistilli Roberto, Felice Pietro, Piatelli Maurizio, Nisii Alessandro, Barausse Carlo, Esposito Marco

出版信息

Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7(2):153-71.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of onlay bone blocks of equine origin (test or XB group) with autogenous bone blocks (control or AB group) harvested from the ramus or the iliac crest for the rehabilitation of partially or fully edentulous atrophic jaws with implant supported prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with partially or fully edentulous atrophic jaws having less than 5 mm of residual crestal bone height and/or less than 3 mm of bone thickness, as measured on computerised tomography (CT) scans, were randomised into two groups according to a parallel group design, either to be augmented with autogenous onlay bone blocks (20 patients; AB group) from the mandibular ramus or the iliac crest, or with onlays blocks of spongious bone of equine origin (20 patients; XB group). Two centres treated 20 patients each. Six XB blocks were modelled on lithographic models of the jaws before grafting. The blocks were fixed with screws and osteosynthesis plates and were covered with resorbable barriers made of equine cortical bone and fixed with tacks. The autogenous bone grafts were left to heal for 4 months and the xenografts for 7 months before placing implants, which were submerged. After 4 months, either bar-retained overdentures or provisional reinforced acrylic prostheses were delivered. Provisional prostheses were replaced, after 4 months, by definitive fixed prostheses. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures; complications; patient satisfaction; pain recorded 3 and 10 days post-augmentation; number of days of hospitalisation, total and partial infirmity days. All patients were followed for 4 months after loading.

RESULTS

All patients could be rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses and none dropped out. Twenty-eight patients were augmented in the maxilla (15 with AB and 13 with XB) and 12 in the mandible (5 with AB and 7 with XB). No AB graft failed totally versus 10 XB grafts (difference = 0.5; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68; P = 0.0004). In particular, all 7 XB mandibular grafts and 5 out of 6 XB blocks (3 in mandibles and 2 in maxillas), which were previously modelled on lithographic models of the jaws failed. One implant failed in one AB patient versus 11 implants in 4 XB patients (P = 0.3416). All but 1 prostheses were loaded in time in the AB patients, versus 4 prostheses which were loaded with delays in XB patients because of graft and implant failures (P = 0.3416). Four complications occurred in 4 AB patients versus 15 complications in 12 XB patients (difference = 0.4; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; P = 0.0225). Fourteen AB patients reported moderate pain 3 days postoperatively versus 6 XB patients (P = 0.0562); at 10 days, 10 AB patients reported moderate pain versus 1 XB patient (difference = -0.45; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.17; P = 0.0033). The 14 patients harvested from the iliac crest were hospitalised for an average of 3.1 nights, whereas 7 patients treated with XB were hospitalised on average for 1.4 nights (P <0.0001). The number of total and partial infirmity days was 126 for theAB group and 43 for the XB group, and 220 for the AB group and 93 for the XB group, respectively (mean day difference = -4.15; 95% CI -7.35 to -0.95; P = 0.0134 and mean day difference = -5.7; 95% CI -10.01 to -1.39; P = 0.0116, respectively). Seventeen AB patients versus 19 XB patients were fully satisfied with function of their prostheses (P = 0.6050), 18 AB patients versus 12 XB patients were fully satisfied with aesthetics of their prostheses (P = 0.0648), and 5 and 3 patients, respectively would not undergo the same procedure again (P = 0.6948). There were no differences between the outcomes of the two centres with exception of prosthesis failures and complications in the maxilla.

CONCLUSIONS

Autogenous onlay bone blocks are superior to equine onlay bone blocks, especially in mandibles, where all equine blocks failed, therefore we strongly discourage the use of onlay bone blocks of equine origin in mandibles.

摘要

目的

比较马源嵌体骨块(试验组或XB组)与取自下颌支或髂嵴的自体骨块(对照组或AB组)用于种植体支持修复部分或完全无牙萎缩性颌骨的有效性。

材料与方法

40例部分或完全无牙萎缩性颌骨患者,计算机断层扫描(CT)显示剩余牙槽嵴骨高度小于5mm和/或骨厚度小于3mm,根据平行组设计随机分为两组,分别用取自下颌支或髂嵴的自体嵌体骨块(20例患者;AB组)或马源松质骨嵌体骨块(20例患者;XB组)进行增量修复。两个中心各治疗20例患者。6个XB骨块在移植前根据颌骨的光刻模型制作。骨块用螺钉和接骨板固定,并用马皮质骨制成的可吸收屏障覆盖,用大头钉固定。自体骨移植在植入种植体前愈合4个月,异种骨移植愈合7个月,种植体为潜入式。4个月后,交付杆卡式覆盖义齿或临时增强丙烯酸义齿。4个月后,临时义齿被确定性固定义齿取代。观察指标包括:义齿和种植体失败情况;并发症;患者满意度;增量修复后3天和10天记录的疼痛情况;住院天数、完全和部分虚弱天数。所有患者在负重后随访4个月。

结果

所有患者均可用种植体支持义齿修复,无患者退出。上颌骨增量修复28例患者(15例AB组和13例XB组),下颌骨12例患者(5例AB组和7例XB组)。AB组骨移植无一例完全失败,而XB组有10例失败(差异=0.5;95%CI 0.23至0.68;P=0.0004)。特别是,所有7个XB下颌骨移植骨块以及6个XB骨块中的5个(3个在下颌骨,2个在上颌骨),这些骨块之前是根据颌骨的光刻模型制作的,均失败。1例AB组患者的1枚种植体失败,而4例XB组患者有11枚种植体失败(P=0.3416)。AB组除1例义齿外均及时负重,而XB组有4例义齿因移植骨块和种植体失败而延迟负重(P=0.3416)。4例AB组患者出现4例并发症,12例XB组患者出现15例并发症(差异=0.4;95%CI 0.09至0.63;P=0.0225)。14例AB组患者术后3天报告中度疼痛,而XB组有6例患者(P=0.0562);术后10天,10例AB组患者报告中度疼痛,而XB组有1例患者(差异=-0.45;95%CI -0.65至-0.17;P=0.0033)。14例取自髂嵴的患者平均住院3.1晚,而7例接受XB治疗的患者平均住院1.4晚(P<0.0001)。AB组完全和部分虚弱天数分别为126天和43天,XB组分别为220天和93天(平均天数差异=-4.15;95%CI -7.35至-0.95;P=0.0134和平均天数差异=-5.7;95%CI -10.01至-1.39;P=0.0116)。17例AB组患者与19例XB组患者对义齿功能完全满意(P=0.6050),18例AB组患者与12例XB组患者对义齿美观完全满意(P=0.0648),分别有5例和3例患者不愿再次接受相同手术(P=0.6948)。除上颌骨义齿失败和并发症外,两个中心的结果无差异。

结论

自体嵌体骨块优于马源嵌体骨块,尤其是在下颌骨,所有马源骨块均失败,因此我们强烈不建议在下颌骨使用马源嵌体骨块。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验