Suppr超能文献

使用夹板式短种植体或标准长度种植体进行上颌后牙区萎缩性骨增量的修复:一项回顾性队列研究

Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla Using Splinted Short Implants or Sinus Augmentation with Standard-Length Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

作者信息

Pieri Francesco, Caselli Ernesto, Forlivesi Caterina, Corinaldesi Giuseppe

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Sep-Oct;31(5):1179-88. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4370.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare short implants (6 to 8 mm) (short group) to standard-length implants (≥ 11 mm) inserted in combination with a lateral sinus elevation procedure (sinus group), supporting partial fixed prostheses in the atrophic posterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records of 118 patients treated with fluoride-modified implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla between January 2009 and December 2011 were screened in two private practices. Two to four implants were placed in each patient and loaded after 5 to 6 months with partial fixed prostheses. Patients were followed for at least 3 years after implant placement. Patients were contacted and invited for clinical and radiologic follow-up examinations. Outcome measures were implant failures, complications, soft tissue parameters, and marginal bone levels. Fisher exact and unpaired t tests were used to compare proportions and means at the .05 level of significance.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients attended the examination: 53 (112 implants) in the sinus group and 48 (109 implants) in the short group. The mean observation period was 47.03 ± 7.46 months for the sinus group and 44.18 ± 6.42 months for the short group. Ten surgical complications occurred in nine patients of the sinus group versus only one complication in the short group; the difference was statistically significant (P = .01). Six implants failed in five patients of the sinus group versus two implants in two patients of the short group. At follow-up, mean marginal bone loss was 0.64 ± 0.58 mm in the sinus group vs 0.48 ± 0.5 mm in the short group. No significant difference was observed in terms of implant failures, prosthetic complications, soft tissue parameters, or marginal bone loss between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, both techniques showed similar medium-term outcomes, but short implants provided advantages in terms of a reduced number of surgical complications.

摘要

目的

回顾性比较短种植体(6至8毫米)(短种植体组)与结合外侧窦提升术植入的标准长度种植体(≥11毫米)(窦提升术组),用于支持萎缩性上颌后牙区的部分固定义齿。

材料与方法

在两家私人诊所筛选了2009年1月至2011年12月期间在萎缩性上颌后牙区接受氟改性种植体治疗的118例患者的记录。每位患者植入2至4枚种植体,5至6个月后用部分固定义齿加载。种植体植入后对患者进行至少3年的随访。与患者联系并邀请其进行临床和影像学随访检查。观察指标为种植体失败、并发症、软组织参数和边缘骨水平。采用Fisher精确检验和非配对t检验在0.05显著性水平下比较比例和均值。

结果

共有101例患者参加检查:窦提升术组53例(112枚种植体),短种植体组48例(109枚种植体)。窦提升术组的平均观察期为47.03±7.46个月,短种植体组为44.18±6.42个月。窦提升术组9例患者发生10例手术并发症,而短种植体组仅1例并发症;差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.01)。窦提升术组5例患者的6枚种植体失败,短种植体组2例患者中的2枚种植体失败。随访时,窦提升术组的平均边缘骨吸收为0.64±0.58毫米,短种植体组为0.48±0.5毫米。两组在种植体失败、修复并发症、软组织参数或边缘骨吸收方面未观察到显著差异。

结论

在本研究的局限性内,两种技术显示出相似的中期结果,但短种植体在减少手术并发症数量方面具有优势。

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