Department of Periodontics and Fixed Prosthodontics, Tuscan School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Department of Periodontics, Università Vita e Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Aug;28(8):974-981. doi: 10.1111/clr.12908. Epub 2016 Jul 5.
To test whether a reduction of bone window dimension, in a split-mouth randomized study design, focused on lateral sinus floor elevations, can achieve better results than a wider window in terms of augmented bone height and a reduction of patient discomfort and surgical complications.
Of the sixteen subjects enrolled in the study, each underwent a bilateral sinus lift procedure based on two different access flaps to maxillary sinus. Test side: small access window (6 × 6 mm) + bone filling using a special device. Control side: large access window (10 × 8 mm) + manual bone filling. Alveolar bone height and width were measured at pre-op and 6-month post-op CT scans; repeatable measurements were obtained using radiographic stents. Surgical intervention duration was also recorded. Patients' evaluation of surgical discomfort was assessed using a VAS diagram at 7-day, 14-day and 30-day follow-up.
A significant bone augmentation in height and width of alveolar crest was obtained in both test (8.71 ± 1.11 mm, 4.70 ± 0.58 mm) and control (8.5 ± 2.02 mm, 4.68 ± 0.70 mm) sides, although no significant differences were found between the two groups. Neither any significant differences emerge in data concerning the duration of the intervention (Test 42.62 ± 6.67 min, Control 41.68 ± 8.34 min). Patients' opinion relating to surgical discomfort showed a preference for test procedure at 7-day, 14-day and 30-day follow-up.
A reduction of window dimensions did not affect the safety of the surgical procedure. The two testing techniques showed no statistically significant differences in surgical intervention duration. Patients' opinion at 7-day and 14-day post-op showed a preference for test procedure.
在一项分侧随机研究设计中，通过缩小骨窗尺寸（重点是外侧窦底提升），测试其在增加骨高度和减少患者不适及手术并发症方面是否优于宽窗。
在本研究中，16 名受试者的每一侧上颌窦均进行了双侧窦提升手术，基于两种不同的上颌窦进入瓣。实验组：小入口窗口（6×6mm）+使用特殊设备进行骨填充。对照组：大入口窗口（10×8mm）+手动骨填充。在术前和术后 6 个月的 CT 扫描中测量牙槽骨高度和宽度；使用放射性支架获得可重复的测量值。还记录了手术干预持续时间。患者在术后 7 天、14 天和 30 天的随访中使用 VAS 图评估手术不适。
实验组（8.71±1.11mm，4.70±0.58mm）和对照组（8.5±2.02mm，4.68±0.70mm）均获得牙槽嵴高度和宽度的显著骨增量，尽管两组之间没有发现显著差异。干预持续时间（实验组 42.62±6.67min，对照组 41.68±8.34min）也没有出现显著差异。患者对手术不适的意见表明，在术后 7 天、14 天和 30 天的随访中，实验组更受欢迎。
缩小窗口尺寸并未影响手术的安全性。两种测试技术在手术干预持续时间方面没有统计学上的显著差异。术后 7 天和 14 天，患者对实验组更满意。
