Balaji S M, Balaji Preetha
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, 30, KB Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Indian J Dent Res. 2020 May-Jun;31(3):389-395. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_410_20.
Implant rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla is challenging. The aim of this manuscript is to compare the clinical outcome of rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla (long span) by zygomatic implants (ZI) versus conventional sinus lift with augmentation procedures dental implants (SLAP-DI).
A retrospective record analysis of a cohort of 25 patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria, over a period of 6 years were performed. The patients had been either treated with ZI or SLAP-DI. The outcome measures were: prosthesis, implant and augmentation failures, any complications, patients' number of days with total or partial impaired activity, time to function and number of dental visits, assessed by independent assessors from records. The data was analyzed using SPSS with P ≤ 0.05.
There were 16 (64%) men and 11 (44%) had ZI while 14 (56%) underwent SLAP-DI. There were no prosthesis or implant failures in this cohort. Between ZI and SLAP-DI, there was no gender difference (P = 0.648), border line significance in minor complication (P = 0.075), with less complication encountered in SLAP-DI than the ZI. None of the cases had major complications that required hospitalization or severe medical therapy. Of the 14 cases that underwent SLAP, 11 (78.6%) had no augmentation failure (resorption <10%). ZI had older age (P = 0.000), with greater number of teeth missing (P = 0.002), with lesser time for functional loading (P = 0.000), required less number of visit to dentist (P = 0.000), and lesser bone loss at insertion site (P = 0.005).
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: The results are discussed in light of previous pertinent literature. This short term (~ 1 year follow-up) suggest that SLAP-DI and ZI have certain similar features. There is no statistical difference in outcome barring the time needed to functional loading (1.3 days vs. 444.3 days). Relatively more complications were reported for ZI, but had no statistical significance. Long-term and multi-center data are needed to confirm the results.
萎缩性上颌骨的种植修复具有挑战性。本文的目的是比较颧骨种植体（ZI）与传统上颌窦提升联合种植体植入术（SLAP-DI）修复萎缩性上颌骨（长跨度）的临床效果。
对符合纳入和排除标准的25例患者进行了为期6年的回顾性记录分析。这些患者接受了ZI或SLAP-DI治疗。观察指标包括：假体、种植体和植骨失败情况、任何并发症、患者完全或部分活动受限的天数、功能恢复时间和看牙次数，由独立评估者根据记录进行评估。使用SPSS对数据进行分析，P≤0.05。
16例（64%）为男性，11例（44%）接受了ZI治疗，14例（56%）接受了SLAP-DI治疗。该队列中无假体或种植体失败病例。在ZI和SLAP-DI之间，性别无差异（P = 0.648），轻微并发症有临界显著性（P = 0.075），SLAP-DI的并发症少于ZI。所有病例均无需要住院或重症治疗的严重并发症。在接受SLAP治疗的14例病例中，11例（78.6%）无植骨失败（吸收<10%）。ZI组患者年龄较大（P = 0.000），缺失牙数量较多（P = 0.002），功能负荷时间较短（P = 0.000），看牙次数较少（P = 0.000），种植位点骨丢失较少（P = 0.005）。
根据以往相关文献对结果进行了讨论。这项短期（约1年随访）研究表明，SLAP-DI和ZI有某些相似特征。除功能负荷所需时间（1.3天对444.3天）外，结果无统计学差异。ZI报告的并发症相对较多，但无统计学意义。需要长期和多中心数据来证实这些结果。
