Private Practice in Periodontics and Implant Dentistry, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Periodontology, Periodontal-Implant Clinical Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021 Oct;23(5):758-768. doi: 10.1111/cid.13038. Epub 2021 Aug 12.
There is a little comparative data on implants placed transcrestally with/without sinus membrane (SM) perforation.
To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of implants with maxillary sinus perforation and those without SM perforation.
Among 560 transcrestally placed implants in 324 patients, the patients who underwent cone-beam computed tomographic radiography (CBCT) were included. The following groups were established: implants with SM perforation (group P) and implants without SM perforation based on postoperative panoramic radiographs and patient records (group NP). Group NP was further divided into subgroups based on CBCT taken at the last patient visit: group NP1 consisting of implants with no protrusion or <1 mm of protrusion and group NP2 consisting of implants with ≥1 mm of protrusion. Mixed linear regression was performed for the factors affecting SM thickening and marginal bone loss. Mixed survival analysis was also performed.
A total of 379 implants in 221 patients were eligible. The mean follow-up period was 112.03 ± 54.2 months. Twenty-six implants failed (2 and 24 implants in groups P and NP, respectively), mainly due to peri-implant bone loss. No statistically significant difference was noted between the groups in SM thickness (2.4 ± 2.8 mm, 2.1 ± 3.4 mm, and 2.5 ± 3.5 mm in groups P, NP1, and NP2, respectively, p > 0.05). Marginal bone loss in group NP1 was significantly greater than that in the other groups. In the mixed model, SM perforation was not a determinant of sinus membrane thickening and implant survival in the mixed models and the survival analysis, respectively.
SM perforation in transcrestal sinus augmentation did not affect implant survival and SM thickening.
有关经牙槽嵴顶入路植入物伴/不伴窦膜穿孔的比较数据较少。
比较上颌窦穿孔和不穿孔的种植体的临床和影像学结果。
在 324 例患者的 560 枚经牙槽嵴顶植入物中，纳入了接受锥形束 CT 放射成像（CBCT）的患者。建立了以下两组：根据术后全景片和患者记录确定有窦膜穿孔的植入物（组 P）和无窦膜穿孔的植入物（组 NP）。根据最后一次就诊时的 CBCT 结果，组 NP 进一步分为两个亚组：无突出或突出<1mm 的植入物（组 NP1）和突出≥1mm 的植入物（组 NP2）。采用混合线性回归分析影响窦膜增厚和边缘骨丧失的因素。还进行了混合生存分析。
共有 221 例患者的 379 枚种植体符合条件。平均随访时间为 112.03±54.2 个月。26 枚种植体失败（组 P 和 NP 分别为 2 和 24 枚），主要原因是种植体周围骨丧失。组间窦膜厚度无统计学差异（组 P、NP1 和 NP2 的窦膜厚度分别为 2.4±2.8mm、2.1±3.4mm 和 2.5±3.5mm，p>0.05）。NP1 组的边缘骨丧失明显大于其他组。在混合模型中，窦膜穿孔不是混合模型中窦膜增厚和种植体生存的决定因素，也不是生存分析的决定因素。
经牙槽嵴顶窦提升时窦膜穿孔不影响种植体的存活率和窦膜增厚。
