Wang Siyuan, Chen Xiaoyu, Wu Weijie, Ling Zhaoting, Yang Sijia, Shen Xiaoting, He Fuming
Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease of Zhejiang Province, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Applied Oral Sciences & Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Jul;36(7):821-834. doi: 10.1111/clr.14428. Epub 2025 Mar 17.
To evaluate the 1- to 5-year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).
This retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.
A total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1- to 5-year follow-up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (p = 0.009, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three-dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (p < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow-up periods (p < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, p = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri-implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.
Considering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri-implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.
评估采用临时螺钉（TS）技术植入牙种植体1至5年的效果，并将其临床疗效与传统引导骨再生（GBR）技术进行比较。
这项回顾性研究纳入了采用TS技术或传统GBR技术植入的种植体。通过重建锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）数据评估水平和体积骨增量。记录并发症、生物学参数、美学评分和患者满意度。
本研究共纳入42例患者的75枚种植体（TS组20个缺损部位，GBR组22个缺损部位）。经过1至5年的随访，无种植体失败，种植体存活率为100%。愈合期后，TS组在种植体肩部下方1、3和5mm处的水平骨增量分别为2.85±1.42mm、3.37±1.79mm和3.27±1.68mm，显著超过GBR组（分别为p = 0.009、p = 0.002、p = 0.002）。同样，愈合期后TS组和GBR组的三维体积骨吸收率分别为16.5%和29.3%（p < 0.001），随访期后分别增至36.7%和50.7%（p < 0.001）。TS组的总体探诊深度（PPD）显著小于GBR组（2.50（2.25，2.50）mm对2.50（2.25，2.75）mm，p = 0.038）。在种植体周围软组织健康、美学和患者满意度方面未观察到其他显著差异。
考虑到与传统GBR技术相比，TS技术在骨增量效果方面更优，且种植体周围软组织健康、美学和患者满意度相当，临时螺钉技术成为上颌前部萎缩性牙槽嵴重建的可靠治疗选择。
