Clinical oral implants research · 2022
Repositioning of the bone window in lateral sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement: A retrospective radiographic study.
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.
Wang Zhikang, Zhang Jing, Ren Lingfei, Yang Guoli
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate whether repositioning the bone window leads to a better outcome of three-dimensional sinus augmentation in lateral sinus floor elevation (LSFE) with simultaneous implant placement.
METHODS: 34 patients with a total of 40 implants (14: test group, 26: control group) receiving LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective research. CBCT images were taken before surgery, immediately and 6 months after surgery. The two-dimensional augmentation parameters, including apical bone height (ABH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and palatal/buccal bone height (PBH/BBH), and three-dimensional parameters, including augmentation volume (AV) and palatal/buccal augmentation volume (PAV/BAV), were measured. The lateral defect length (LDL) and lateral window length (LWL) were also measured to evaluate the lateral antrostomy recovery.
RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction rates at ABH, ESBG, and BBH of the test group (ABH: 10.41% ± 30.30%, ESBG: 2.55% ± 8.91%, BBH: 2.50% ± 8.65%) were significantly lower than those of the control group (ABH: 25.10% ± 22.02%, ESBG: 11.47% ± 9.79%, BBH: 7.10% ± 5.37%; p < .05). In addition, the test group showed better three-dimensional augmentation stability on the buccal side (BAV reduction: 15.51% ± 10.86% vs. 27.15% ± 12.61%; p < .05). Moreover, the LDL/LWL ratio of the test group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .05).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, repositioning of the bone window in LSFE with simultaneous implant placement could contribute to endo-sinus augmentation stability on the buccal side at the 6-month follow-up. Moreover, it would also facilitate recovery of the lateral antrostomy defect.
METHODS: 34 patients with a total of 40 implants (14: test group, 26: control group) receiving LSFE with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective research. CBCT images were taken before surgery, immediately and 6 months after surgery. The two-dimensional augmentation parameters, including apical bone height (ABH), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), and palatal/buccal bone height (PBH/BBH), and three-dimensional parameters, including augmentation volume (AV) and palatal/buccal augmentation volume (PAV/BAV), were measured. The lateral defect length (LDL) and lateral window length (LWL) were also measured to evaluate the lateral antrostomy recovery.
RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, the reduction rates at ABH, ESBG, and BBH of the test group (ABH: 10.41% ± 30.30%, ESBG: 2.55% ± 8.91%, BBH: 2.50% ± 8.65%) were significantly lower than those of the control group (ABH: 25.10% ± 22.02%, ESBG: 11.47% ± 9.79%, BBH: 7.10% ± 5.37%; p < .05). In addition, the test group showed better three-dimensional augmentation stability on the buccal side (BAV reduction: 15.51% ± 10.86% vs. 27.15% ± 12.61%; p < .05). Moreover, the LDL/LWL ratio of the test group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .05).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, repositioning of the bone window in LSFE with simultaneous implant placement could contribute to endo-sinus augmentation stability on the buccal side at the 6-month follow-up. Moreover, it would also facilitate recovery of the lateral antrostomy defect.