Menchini-Fabris Giovanni Battista, Toti Paolo, Crespi Roberto, Crespi Giovanni, Cosola Saverio, Covani Ugo
Department of Stomatology, Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Foundation for Dental Clinic, Research and Continuing Education, 55041 Camaiore, Italy.
Study Center for Multidisciplinary Regenerative Research, Guglielmo Marconi University, 00100 Rome, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2022 Feb 10;11(4):922. doi: 10.3390/jcm11040922.
The present retrospective analysis aimed to compare two different single tooth extraction surgical approaches in both premolar and molar areas: less traumatic magneto-electrical versus conventional tooth extraction in minimizing the edentulous ridge volume loss.
In the present retrospective control trial, 48 patients who underwent one-tooth extraction, were allocated either to control (28 sites treated with conventional tooth extraction procedures) or test group (20 subjects treated with less traumatic tooth extraction procedures by tooth sectioning and magnetoelectric roots subluxation). Intraoperatively (during tooth extraction surgery just after the subsequent filling of the alveolar socket with the sterile fast re-absorbable gelatin sponge), and then four months later, contours of the sockets were acquired through a laser intra-oral scanner. The digitally superimposed models were converted to dicom (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) format first, then volumetric and area evaluations were performed with a DentaScan tool package. Non-parametric tests were applied with a level of significance set at < 0.01.
significant reductions of anatomical features were observed four months later in all the groups (-values < 0.001) with volume losses leading to a final alveolar ridge volume of 0.87 ± 0.34 cm for atraumatic extractions and 0.66 ± 0.19 cm for conventional extractions. No significant differences were registered for outcomes related to the basal surface variables. When just molar tooth were considered, the outcomes relating to volume loss between baseline and four months (ΔV) and its percentage (ΔV%) showed a better behavior in the less traumatic procedure (ΔV = -0.30 ± 0.10 cm and ΔV% = -22.3 ± 8.4%) compared to the conventional extractions (ΔV = -0.59 ± 0.10 cm and ΔV% = -44.3 ± 5.8%) with -values < 0.0001.
at four months, the less traumatic tooth extraction procedures by tooth sectioning and magnetoelectric root subluxation seemed to be able to better preserve the volume of the alveolar crest (reduction close to 22% with less traumatic extraction in molar sites) when compared to subjects treated with the conventional tooth extraction techniques.
本回顾性分析旨在比较前磨牙和磨牙区域两种不同的单颗牙拔除手术方法：创伤较小的磁电法与传统拔牙法，以尽量减少无牙牙槽嵴体积的损失。
在本回顾性对照试验中，48例接受单颗牙拔除的患者被分为对照组（28个位点采用传统拔牙程序治疗）或试验组（20例受试者采用牙体分割和磁电牙根半脱位的创伤较小的拔牙程序治疗）。术中（在拔牙手术期间，随后用无菌快速可吸收明胶海绵填充牙槽窝后），然后在四个月后，通过激光口腔内扫描仪获取牙槽窝的轮廓。首先将数字叠加模型转换为dicom（医学数字成像和通信）格式，然后使用DentaScan工具包进行体积和面积评估。应用非参数检验，显著性水平设定为<0.01。
四个月后，所有组的解剖特征均有显著减少（P值<0.001），体积损失导致无创拔牙的最终牙槽嵴体积为0.87±0.34 cm³，传统拔牙为0.66±0.19 cm³。与基底面变量相关的结果无显著差异。仅考虑磨牙时，与传统拔牙（ΔV = -0.59±0.10 cm³，ΔV% = -44.3±5.8%）相比，创伤较小的手术在基线和四个月之间的体积损失（ΔV）及其百分比（ΔV%）表现更好（ΔV = -0.30±0.10 cm³，ΔV% = -22.3±8.4%），P值<0.0001。
四个月时，与采用传统拔牙技术治疗的受试者相比，采用牙体分割和磁电牙根半脱位的创伤较小的拔牙程序似乎能够更好地保留牙槽嵴的体积（磨牙部位采用创伤较小的拔牙时减少近22%）。
