Department of Oral and Maxillo-facial Implantology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School of Medicine, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School of Medicine, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Aug;46(8):855-862. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13147. Epub 2019 May 24.
To compare the clinical, radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE).
Two hundred and twenty-five patients with 225 implants were included and randomly assigned into three groups (each group: 75 implants) using randomizing table method: group 6 mm (6 mm implants alone), group 8 mm + O (8 mm implants + OSFE) and group 10 mm + O (10 mm implants + OSFE). Outcomes measures were as follows: implant survival, complication, resonance frequency analysis measurement, surgical time, bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL) and patient satisfaction.
The dropout rate was 3.6% at 1 year. Implant survival rates were 96%, 100% and 100% in group 6 mm, group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O, respectively. In group 6 mm, the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.1 mm were 90% (27/30), while the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.8 mm were 100% (42/42). The surgical time (min) in group 6 mm was significantly shorter than those in group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O (13.6 ± 2.2, 19.4 ± 3.7 and 18.3 ± 4.3, respectively, p = 0.03). No significant differences in ISQ values, BOP, PPD, mPI and MBL were found among three groups. Significant higher value of intra-operative discomfort was found in group 6 mm (p = 0.02).
All treatment options provided acceptable clinical and radiographic results up to 1 year after loading. The current 1-year results must be confirmed by longer follow-ups of at least 5 years.
比较短 6mm 种植体与长种植体联合使用骨凿上颌窦底提升（OSFE）的临床、影像学结果和患者满意度。
采用随机数字表法将 225 例患者的 225 枚种植体随机分为三组（每组 75 枚种植体）：6mm 组（仅使用 6mm 种植体）、8mm+O 组（8mm 种植体+OSFE）和 10mm+O 组（10mm 种植体+OSFE）。观察指标包括：种植体存活率、并发症、共振频率分析测量、手术时间、探诊出血（BOP）、探诊深度（PPD）、改良菌斑指数（mPI）、边缘骨吸收（MBL）和患者满意度。
1 年的失访率为 3.6%。6mm 组、8mm+O 组和 10mm+O 组的种植体存活率分别为 96%、100%和 100%。在 6mm 组中，直径为 4.1mm 的种植体存活率为 90%（27/30），直径为 4.8mm 的种植体存活率为 100%（42/42）。6mm 组的手术时间（min）明显短于 8mm+O 组和 10mm+O 组（13.6±2.2、19.4±3.7 和 18.3±4.3，p=0.03）。三组间 ISQ 值、BOP、PPD、mPI 和 MBL 无显著差异。6mm 组术中不适程度显著高于其他两组（p=0.02）。
所有治疗方案在加载后 1 年内均提供了可接受的临床和影像学结果。目前的 1 年结果必须通过至少 5 年的长期随访来确认。
