Yassin Alsabbagh Aghiad, Alsabbagh Mohammed Monzer, Darjazini Nahas Batol, Rajih Salam
Department of Periodontology, Damascus University Dental School, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.
Department of Orthodontics, Damascus University Dental School, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.
Int J Implant Dent. 2017 Sep 4;3(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s40729-017-0103-5.
Various techniques are available for elevating the sinus membrane. The aim of this study is to evaluate three methods of indirect sinus floor elevation regarding elevation heights of 7 mm on the outcomes of membrane perforation, length of perforation, and time required to perform the procedure.
Three different methods for indirect sinus lifting, bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation (BAOSFE), sinus floor elevation with an inflatable balloon, and crestal approach system (CAS kit) from OSSTEM, were assessed for their ability to lift the sinus without causing laceration of the Schneiderian membrane. The study was performed on 18 freshly slaughtered sheep heads (36 sinus lifts were done, 12 for each method). CBCT images of the heads were taken to assess the best location for the sinus lift. Then, the heads were bisected and the membrane was exposed from the medial aspect. After that, each method was performed. The intended elevation height was 7 mm. If the 7 mm were not reached, the maximum height of elevation was measured.
The method used was significantly associated with the occurrence of perforation (p value = 0.014) where BAOSFE was associated with the largest number of perforations (58.4%, n = 7) compared to 8.3% and 8.3% for the balloon and CAS kit methods, respectively. The odds ratio for perforation occurrence from BAOSFE compared to the CAS kit was significant (OR = 0.091, p = .022). No significant odds ratio was found for the balloon method compared to CAS kit. Additionally, the method used was significantly associated with time of operation and with the length of perforation (p value < 0.001) where CAS kit required the longest time and BAOSFE caused the biggest perforations.
The study shows that both the balloon and the CAS kit were superior to the BAOSFE in terms of safety in elevating the sinus membrane. Further, in vivo studies have to prove these findings.
有多种技术可用于提升鼻窦黏膜。本研究的目的是评估三种间接鼻窦底提升方法,这些方法在提升高度达7毫米时对黏膜穿孔情况、穿孔长度以及手术所需时间的影响。
评估了三种不同的间接鼻窦提升方法,即骨添加骨凿鼻窦底提升术(BAOSFE)、用可充气球囊进行鼻窦底提升术以及OSSTEM公司的嵴顶入路系统(CAS套件),评估它们在不造成施耐德膜撕裂的情况下提升鼻窦的能力。该研究在18个刚宰杀的羊头上进行(共进行了36次鼻窦提升,每种方法12次)。拍摄羊头的CBCT图像以评估鼻窦提升的最佳位置。然后,将羊头对半切开,从内侧暴露黏膜。之后,每种方法都进行操作。预期提升高度为7毫米。如果未达到7毫米,则测量最大提升高度。
所使用的方法与穿孔的发生显著相关(p值 = 0.014),其中BAOSFE与最多的穿孔相关(58.4%,n = 7),而球囊法和CAS套件法分别为8.3%和8.3%。与CAS套件相比,BAOSFE发生穿孔的优势比显著(OR = 0.091,p = 0.022)。与CAS套件相比,球囊法未发现显著的优势比。此外,所使用的方法与手术时间和穿孔长度显著相关(p值 < 0.001),其中CAS套件所需时间最长,BAOSFE造成的穿孔最大。
该研究表明,在提升鼻窦黏膜的安全性方面,球囊法和CAS套件均优于BAOSFE。此外,还需要体内研究来证实这些发现。