Hegde Rakshith, Prasad Krishna, Shroff Kaiwan Khurshed
Department of Prosthodontics, A B Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016 Oct-Dec;16(4):317-322. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.191289.
Implants have a predictable outcome and are the foremost treatment modality for prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous patients. Due to loss of bone after extraction and pneumatization of maxillary sinus, there is insufficient bone volume for implant placement. The direct maxillary sinus lift procedure has been performed with different grafting materials (autogenous bone grafts, alloplasts, allografts, and xenografts) and without grafting material, having new bone formation around the implant. There is no evidence to prove the need for grafting material in all direct sinus lift procedures, hence the need for this review. Previous meta-analysis showed that survival rates of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses had similar survival rates whether autogenous, allogenous, or alloplastic grafts were used. This paper aims to review scientific data on the direct sinus elevation technique without use of any grafting material, volume of new bone formed, and also mechanism behind this technique. Articles were searched from 1997 to October 2014 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL. The study eligibility criteria were (1) direct sinus lift procedure without any graft material during implant placement and (2) human or animal studies with a minimum follow-up of 6 months or more. Two authors independently scrutinized the literature and if any controversy was raised, third author's opinion was sought to arrive at a mutual consensus for including the study in the review. Due to the heterogeneity across all studies in all study designs, the data were not pooled and a meta-analysis was not performed. Taking into consideration all factors reviewed in this regard along with the outcomes, the direct sinus lift technique without grafting can be suggested as a viable treatment option keeping in mind the limitations involved. The average bone gain was seen across all studies ranging from 2.37 to 10 mm and with an implant survival rate ranging from 79.9% to 100% across studies.
种植体具有可预测的效果,是无牙患者修复性康复的首要治疗方式。由于拔牙后骨质流失以及上颌窦气化,用于种植体植入的骨量不足。直接上颌窦提升术已采用不同的移植材料(自体骨移植、异体人工骨、同种异体骨和异种移植物)进行,且在不使用移植材料的情况下,种植体周围也有新骨形成。没有证据证明在所有直接窦提升术中都需要移植材料,因此有必要进行本综述。先前的荟萃分析表明,无论使用自体、同种异体还是异体人工骨移植,在上颌窦移植后植入的种植体存活率相似。本文旨在综述关于不使用任何移植材料的直接窦提升技术、新形成骨的体积以及该技术背后机制的科学数据。在PubMed、谷歌学术和考克兰中央对照试验注册库中检索了1997年至2014年10月的文章。研究纳入标准为:(1)种植体植入期间不使用任何移植材料的直接窦提升术;(2)随访至少6个月或更长时间的人体或动物研究。两位作者独立审查文献,若出现任何争议,则寻求第三位作者的意见,以达成共同共识,决定是否将该研究纳入综述。由于所有研究设计中所有研究的异质性,数据未进行汇总,也未进行荟萃分析。考虑到这方面审查的所有因素以及结果,在考虑到相关局限性的情况下,可建议不使用移植材料的直接窦提升技术作为一种可行的治疗选择。所有研究中观察到的平均骨增量在2.37至10毫米之间,各研究中的种植体存活率在79.9%至100%之间。