Suppr超能文献

上颌窦骨增量的组织形态计量学分析:一项初步研究。

Histomorphometric Analysis of Maxillary Sinus Grafts: A Pilot Study.

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 May/June;34(3):759–767. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6218. Epub 2019 Feb 26.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This pilot study evaluated and compared the degree of new bone formation following maxillary sinus graft (MSG) using three different bone graft materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with an edentulous posterior maxilla (unilateral or bilateral) were included in this study and underwent a two-stage procedure. Each sinus was randomly assigned one of the three graft materials: anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM), anorganic equine bone mineral (AEBM), or mineralized cancellous bone allograft (MCBA). Bone core samples were obtained from the lateral wall of the grafted sites at least 8 months after MSG. Bone quality was evaluated during bone core retrieval. The samples were histomorphometrically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn-Bonferroni tests at the significance level of α = .05.

RESULTS

A total of 28 sinuses (14 unilateral and 7 bilateral) from 21 subjects, with a mean age of 61.5 (range, 33-75) years, were included in the study. Twenty-eight bone cores (ABBM [n = 9], AEBM [n = 9], and MCBA [n = 10]) were obtained at a mean healing time of 9.1 (range, 8-12) months. Six maxillary sinus membrane perforations (≤ 5 mm) were noted and repaired during surgery (21.4%). Histomorphometric analysis of the harvested bone cores revealed statistically significant differences in the percentage of vital bone (VB%), residual bone materials (RBM%), and connective tissue/marrow (CT%) among the different graft materials (Kruskal-Wallis; P < .05). The VB% in the MCBA group (32.0% ± 12.4%) was significantly greater than those in the ABBM (10.9% ± 8.9%) and AEBM (9.1% ± 5.9%) groups (P < .05). The RBM% in the MCBA group (5.5% ± 5.7%) was, however, significantly less than those in the ABBM (34.3% ± 12.1%) and AEBM (38.9% ± 5.3%) groups (P < .05). There were no significant differences in VB% and RBM% between ABBM and AEBM (P = 1.0). Newly formed bone and residual graft materials were integrated into the surrounding tissue with no sign of inflammation or foreign-body reaction.

CONCLUSION

Within the confines of the study, MCBA has significantly greater new bone formation than ABBM and AEBM. AEBM showed comparable histomorphometric results in all parameters (VB%, RBM%, CT%) to ABBM.

摘要

目的

本初步研究评估并比较了使用三种不同骨移植物材料进行上颌窦提升(MSG)后新骨形成的程度。

材料和方法

本研究纳入了无牙后上颌骨(单侧或双侧)的患者,并进行了两阶段手术。每个窦腔均随机分配使用三种移植物材料之一:无机牛骨矿物质(ABBM)、无机马骨矿物质(AEBM)或矿化松质骨同种异体移植物(MCBA)。MSG 后至少 8 个月,从移植部位的外侧壁获得骨芯样本。在获得骨芯时评估骨质量。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Dunn-Bonferroni 检验在α=0.05 的显著性水平下对样本进行组织形态计量学分析。

结果

本研究共纳入 21 名受试者的 28 个窦腔(14 个单侧和 7 个双侧),平均年龄为 61.5 岁(范围,33-75 岁)。在平均愈合时间 9.1 个月(范围,8-12 个月)时获得了 28 个骨芯(ABBM [n=9]、AEBM [n=9]和 MCBA [n=10])。术中发现并修复了 6 例上颌窦膜穿孔(≤5mm)(21.4%)。对采集的骨芯进行组织形态计量学分析显示,不同移植物材料之间的活骨百分比(VB%)、残留骨材料百分比(RBM%)和结缔组织/骨髓百分比(CT%)存在统计学显著差异(Kruskal-Wallis;P<.05)。MCBA 组的 VB%(32.0%±12.4%)明显高于 ABBM 组(10.9%±8.9%)和 AEBM 组(9.1%±5.9%)(P<.05)。然而,MCBA 组的 RBM%(5.5%±5.7%)明显低于 ABBM 组(34.3%±12.1%)和 AEBM 组(38.9%±5.3%)(P<.05)。ABBM 和 AEBM 之间的 VB%和 RBM%无显著差异(P=1.0)。新形成的骨和残留的移植物材料与周围组织整合在一起,没有炎症或异物反应的迹象。

结论

在本研究范围内,MCBA 与 ABBM 和 AEBM 相比具有显著更高的新骨形成。AEBM 在所有参数(VB%、RBM%、CT%)方面的组织形态计量学结果与 ABBM 相当。

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