Suppr超能文献

一项比较引导骨再生联合结缔组织移植与单独使用结缔组织移植重建颊侧骨凸度的随机对照研究:一年的美学和患者报告结果。

A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re-establish buccal convexity: One-year aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes.

机构信息

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Oral Health Research Group (ORHE), Brussels, Belgium.

Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dental School, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

出版信息

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jun;31(6):507-516. doi: 10.1111/clr.13587. Epub 2020 Feb 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) with connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcomes were Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI) assessed after 1 year. Secondary outcomes included PROMs registered during the early stages of healing and after 1 year.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included per group (control: 11 females, mean age 51; test: nine females, mean age 48). Although there was no significant difference in the PES between the groups (control: 10.11; test: 10.48; p = .577), the MSI was significantly lower in the test (1.10) than in the control group (2.53) (p = .017). Based on descriptive statistics, the latter demonstrated wider scars, more colour mismatch and slightly more suture marks. However, these were not considered disturbing by the patients given similar VAS on soft tissue aesthetics (control: 84; test: 87). Oedema and haematoma were rated twice as high in the control group on at least two postoperative time points, and patients took more painkillers (7.10 vs. 4.86). OHIP-14 decreased in both groups between baseline and 1-year follow-up, indicative of less discomfort in daily life. Differences in MSI and PROMs between the groups may be explained by the need of a vertical releasing incision in order to achieve sufficient access for GBR, periosteal incisions and the use of biomaterials that may induce inflammation.

CONCLUSION

GBR and CTG resulted in favourable aesthetic outcomes as assessed by professionals and patients. However, given additional vertical and periosteal incisions, GBR resulted in more scarring, postoperative discomfort and a higher need for painkillers.

摘要

目的

比较引导骨再生(GBR)与结缔组织移植(CTG)在美学和患者报告结果(PROM)方面的差异。

材料与方法

本单盲 RCT 纳入了上颌前牙单个缺牙间隙伴水平牙槽骨缺损的患者。所有位点颊腭侧骨宽度至少为 6 mm,植入单个种植体,并随机分配至对照组(GBR)或试验组(CTG),以重建颊侧软组织凸度。主要结局为术后 1 年时的Pink 美学评分(PES)和黏膜瘢痕指数(MSI)。次要结局包括愈合早期和术后 1 年时的 PROM。

结果

每组纳入 21 例患者(对照组:11 例女性,平均年龄 51 岁;试验组:9 例女性,平均年龄 48 岁)。两组 PES 无显著差异(对照组:10.11;试验组:10.48;p=0.577),但试验组 MSI 显著低于对照组(试验组:1.10;对照组:2.53)(p=0.017)。基于描述性统计,后者表现为更宽的瘢痕、更多的颜色不匹配和稍多的缝线痕迹。然而,患者在软组织美学方面的 VAS 评分相似(对照组:84;试验组:87),因此认为这些并不令人困扰。在至少两个术后时间点,对照组的肿胀和血肿评分均高两倍,且患者服用更多的止痛药(对照组:7.10;试验组:4.86)。两组的 OHIP-14 在基线和 1 年随访期间均降低,表明日常生活中的不适减少。两组之间的 MSI 和 PROM 差异可能归因于 GBR 需要垂直松解切口以获得足够的通路、骨膜切口和使用可能引起炎症的生物材料。

结论

GBR 和 CTG 均获得了专业人士和患者的良好美学效果。然而,由于额外的垂直和骨膜切口,GBR 导致更多的瘢痕形成、术后不适和更高的止痛药需求。

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