Tunis, Tunisia.
Military Hospital, No. 8, Univers street, Tunis, Tunisia.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Feb;120(1):28-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.11.006. Epub 2018 Nov 16.
The choice of treatment for implant rehabilitation for maxillary atrophy is crucial. It involves either between the use of short implants or performing sinus lift and the establishment of standard implants: what would be the best choice in term of survival rate and complications? We conducted a systematic review to try to answer this question.
An electronic and manual search of clinical studies (between 2007 and 2017) comparing short implants to standard implants associated with sinus lift was performed. All the articles are read and analyzed then selected according to previously defined inclusion criteria. Eighteen articles were selected from the 358 articles: 15 randomized controlled trials, 1 cohort study and 2 systematic reviews.
The studies were divided according to their follow-up periods: short (< 1 year), medium (1 year) and long (> 1 year). The results of the study showed a survival rate for short implants ranging from 91.8% to 100%, and from 87.8% to 100% for standard implants associated with sinus lift. Biological complications predominate with the perforation of Schneider's membrane, which is by far the most common complication. The results of the meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in the survival rate of the two procedures over the short, medium and long term. However but the study of complications shows that in the short and medium term, the results are in favor of short implants.
Compared to standard implants associated with sinus lift, short implants have the advantage of being a solution with a high survival rate, it is less expensive, requiring less surgical time, presenting fewer complications compared to advanced surgery of sinus lift and thus obtaining more patient satisfaction.
Short implants are a reliable alternative compared to standard implants associated with sinus lift. They present an alternative with the same survival rate and fewer complications.
上颌萎缩种植修复治疗方案的选择至关重要。这涉及到使用短种植体还是进行窦底提升并建立标准种植体:在存活率和并发症方面,哪种方案是最佳选择?我们进行了系统评价,试图回答这个问题。
对 2007 年至 2017 年间比较短种植体与窦底提升联合标准种植体的临床研究进行了电子和手动检索。对所有文章进行阅读和分析,然后根据预先定义的纳入标准进行选择。从 358 篇文章中选出了 18 篇文章:15 篇随机对照试验,1 篇队列研究和 2 篇系统评价。
根据随访时间长短将研究分为短(<1 年)、中(1 年)和长(>1 年)期。研究结果显示,短种植体的存活率为 91.8%至 100%,而窦底提升联合标准种植体的存活率为 87.8%至 100%。生物并发症以 Schneider 膜穿孔为主,这是迄今为止最常见的并发症。荟萃分析结果显示,在短、中、长期内,两种手术方法的存活率无统计学差异。然而,并发症研究结果表明,在短期和中期,短种植体的效果更好。
与窦底提升联合标准种植体相比,短种植体具有高存活率、成本更低、手术时间更短、与窦底提升等先进手术相比并发症更少的优势,从而获得更多患者的满意度。
与窦底提升联合标准种植体相比,短种植体是一种可靠的替代方案。它们具有相同的存活率和更少的并发症。