Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2011
Comparison between conventional and piezoelectric surgical tools for maxillary sinus floor elevation. A randomized controlled clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rickert Daniela, Vissink Arjan, Slater James J R Huddleston, Meijer Henny J A, Raghoebar Gerry M
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of conventional rotative instruments and a piezoelectric device for maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery, and to assess whether application of a resorbable membrane reduces resorption of an augmented site in a randomized clinical trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients (59.2 ± 10.7 years, range 38-76 years) needing bilateral sinus floor elevation surgery agreed to participate in this study. In a parallel split mouth design randomized clinical trial, in which the allocation of the surgical technique to be used on the determined sites was randomly assigned, one site was always treated with conventional rotative instruments (control group) and the other site with piezosurgery (test group). In addition, in a random order, the grafted sites were covered with a collagen membrane or no membrane. After a healing period of 3-4 months implants were placed.
RESULTS: Comparison of clinical features of the test and control sites revealed no differences with regard to wound healing and complications (perforations of the sinus membrane) during or postsurgery (p = .458, p = 1.0, respectively). A clinically insignificant, but statistically shorter operation time was observed when using conventional rotative instruments (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than using piezosurgery (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes; p < .001). In both groups, application of a resorbable membrane did not result in less horizontal bone resorption (membrane: 1.43 mm, no membrane: 1.06 mm; p = .062); All 193 implants could be placed with primary stability. One year after functional loading, survival rate was 100%.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that, for maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery, a piezoelectric device shows no advantages over rotative instruments as well as that placement of a barrier membrane did not reduce resorption of the augmented site.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients (59.2 ± 10.7 years, range 38-76 years) needing bilateral sinus floor elevation surgery agreed to participate in this study. In a parallel split mouth design randomized clinical trial, in which the allocation of the surgical technique to be used on the determined sites was randomly assigned, one site was always treated with conventional rotative instruments (control group) and the other site with piezosurgery (test group). In addition, in a random order, the grafted sites were covered with a collagen membrane or no membrane. After a healing period of 3-4 months implants were placed.
RESULTS: Comparison of clinical features of the test and control sites revealed no differences with regard to wound healing and complications (perforations of the sinus membrane) during or postsurgery (p = .458, p = 1.0, respectively). A clinically insignificant, but statistically shorter operation time was observed when using conventional rotative instruments (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than using piezosurgery (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes; p < .001). In both groups, application of a resorbable membrane did not result in less horizontal bone resorption (membrane: 1.43 mm, no membrane: 1.06 mm; p = .062); All 193 implants could be placed with primary stability. One year after functional loading, survival rate was 100%.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that, for maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery, a piezoelectric device shows no advantages over rotative instruments as well as that placement of a barrier membrane did not reduce resorption of the augmented site.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAdultAgedAutograftsBone ResorptionBone TransplantationCollagenDental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDenture, OverlayEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsMaleMaxillaMembranes, ArtificialMiddle AgedNasal MucosaOperative TimePiezosurgeryPostoperative ComplicationsSinus Floor AugmentationSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurvival AnalysisWound Healing