Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology · 2020
[Differences of bone augmentation in patients with different bone defects by extraction site preservation].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Xiong Ji-Wen, Zhou Wei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To explore the difference of bone augmentation in patients with different bone defects by extraction site preservation.
METHODS: From January 2017 to June 2019, 85 patients with dental implants treated in Hefei Second People's Hospital were enrolled and divided into the experimental group (43 cases) and the control group (42 cases) according to random number table method. Patients in the experimental group received extraction site preservation, while patients in the control group underwent routine tooth extraction. The two groups were further divided into one-wall group (remaining one wall of the alveolar socket after surgery), two-wall group (remaining two walls), three-wall group (remaining three wall), and four-wall group (remaining four walls). Postoperative pain, wound healing, and infection were recorded. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed immediately and 6 months after surgery to detect alveolar bone height, bone width, bone width recovery rate, etc. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain between the two groups after 24 hours (P>0.05). All implants healed well after 7 days, and no wound infection or bone infection occurred 6 months after operation. There was no significant difference in buccal bone volume of alveolar ridge (BV) and lingual volume (LV) before surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). BV and LV in the experimental group increased after treatment, and the increase in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall subgroups. BV and LV in the control group decreased, the differences between the subgroups were statistically significant (P<0.05). BV and LV increased in both groups after operation, but significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The increase in bone height in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall groups (P<0.05). Bone width of all subgroups in the experimental group increased, but decreased in the control group. The increase of bone width in the experimental group was significantly different from the control group(P<0.05). In the experimental group, the increase in bone width in one- and two-wall groups was significantly higher than that in three-wall group, and the decrease in bone width in one- and two-wall group in the control group was significantly less than that in three- and four-wall group(P<0.05). The average recovery rate of bone width in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The average recovery rate of bone width in one- and two-wall group in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group(P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the recovery rate from the control group(P>0.05). The change of bone width at 70% of root length in the same group was significantly smaller than that at 50% and 30% of root length (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Extraction site preservation after tooth extraction can relieve alveolar bone resorption and maintain bone mass in contrast to conventional tooth extraction. The smaller the bone defect, the better the bone mass recovery effect.
METHODS: From January 2017 to June 2019, 85 patients with dental implants treated in Hefei Second People's Hospital were enrolled and divided into the experimental group (43 cases) and the control group (42 cases) according to random number table method. Patients in the experimental group received extraction site preservation, while patients in the control group underwent routine tooth extraction. The two groups were further divided into one-wall group (remaining one wall of the alveolar socket after surgery), two-wall group (remaining two walls), three-wall group (remaining three wall), and four-wall group (remaining four walls). Postoperative pain, wound healing, and infection were recorded. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed immediately and 6 months after surgery to detect alveolar bone height, bone width, bone width recovery rate, etc. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain between the two groups after 24 hours (P>0.05). All implants healed well after 7 days, and no wound infection or bone infection occurred 6 months after operation. There was no significant difference in buccal bone volume of alveolar ridge (BV) and lingual volume (LV) before surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). BV and LV in the experimental group increased after treatment, and the increase in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall subgroups. BV and LV in the control group decreased, the differences between the subgroups were statistically significant (P<0.05). BV and LV increased in both groups after operation, but significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The increase in bone height in one- and two-wall subgroups was significantly higher than that in three- and four-wall groups (P<0.05). Bone width of all subgroups in the experimental group increased, but decreased in the control group. The increase of bone width in the experimental group was significantly different from the control group(P<0.05). In the experimental group, the increase in bone width in one- and two-wall groups was significantly higher than that in three-wall group, and the decrease in bone width in one- and two-wall group in the control group was significantly less than that in three- and four-wall group(P<0.05). The average recovery rate of bone width in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The average recovery rate of bone width in one- and two-wall group in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group(P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the recovery rate from the control group(P>0.05). The change of bone width at 70% of root length in the same group was significantly smaller than that at 50% and 30% of root length (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Extraction site preservation after tooth extraction can relieve alveolar bone resorption and maintain bone mass in contrast to conventional tooth extraction. The smaller the bone defect, the better the bone mass recovery effect.