Department of Oral and Maxillo-facial Implantology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
J Clin Periodontol. 2021 May;48(5):695-704. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13444. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
To compare the 3-year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla.
This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6-8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3-year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication-free survival and treatment costs.
At the 3-year follow-up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re-examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short-6-mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication-free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6-mm implants over a 3-year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10-mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8-mm implant with OSFE.
In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3-year follow-up. 10-mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant survival and fewer maintenance costs in comparison with short-6-mm implants, which were less expensive.
比较 6 毫米短种植体和更长种植体联合使用窦底提升术（OSFE）在后部上颌骨中的 3 年临床、放射学和经济学结果。
本研究纳入了 225 名（225 个直径为 4.1mm 和 4.8mm 的种植体）上颌后部剩余牙槽骨高度（RBH）为 6-8mm 的患者。患者随机分为三组：第 1 组（单独使用 6mm 种植体）、第 2 组（8mm 种植体+OSFE）和第 3 组（10mm 种植体+OSFE）。在 1 年和 3 年的检查中记录了以下结果：种植体存活率、探诊袋深度（PPD）、探诊出血（BOP）、改良菌斑指数（mPI）、边缘骨丧失（MBL）、生物学和技术并发症、无并发症存活率和治疗成本。
在 3 年的随访中，199 名患者（第 1 组：67 名；第 2 组：62 名；第 3 组：70 名）接受了重新检查。第 1、2 和 3 组的种植体存活率分别为 91.80%、97.08%和 100.00%。第 1 组的种植体存活率明显低于第 3 组（p=0.029）。多变量 Cox 模型显示，宽直径的 6 毫米短种植体对种植体存活率有保护作用（风险比：0.59，p=0.001）。三组之间 BOP%、PPD、mPI、MBL 和无并发症存活率无显著差异。第 1、2 和 3 组中，再治疗的平均费用分别为总费用的 8.31%、1.96%和 0.56%。在 3 年的时间里，为避免与 6 毫米种植体相关的 1%种植体丢失，使用 OSFE 的 10 毫米种植体的成本为 369 元（56 美元），使用 OSFE 的 8 毫米种植体的成本为 484 元（74 美元）。
在中度萎缩的上颌后部，三种治疗方法在长达 3 年的随访中均显示出可接受的临床、放射学和经济学结果。与短 6 毫米种植体相比，10 毫米种植体联合 OSFE 具有更高的种植体存活率和更低的维护成本，而后者的成本较低。
