Clinical oral implants research · 2014
Sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone vs. a bovine-derived xenograft - a 5-year retrospective study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lutz Rainer, Berger-Fink Susanne, Stockmann Philipp, Neukam Friedrich Wilhelm, Schlegel Karl Andreas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The long-term outcome after sinus augmentation with autogenous bone or a bovine xenograft (Bio-Oss(®)) was assessed in 47 patients. Inclusion criterion was a vertical dimension of the maxilla of <4 mm. After a functional loading period of 60 months, implant survival and reduction in the augmentation height were compared between the two groups evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sinus augmentation was performed using mandibular bone grafts or Bio-Oss(®). In the autogenous bone group, 70 implants were placed in 23 patients, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, 24 patients received 98 implants. Fisher's exact test and equivalence testing were used to compare implant survival rates.
RESULTS: The overall survival rate of the implants was 95.8% 5 years after implant insertion. In the autogenous bone group, the implants had a survival rate of 97.1%, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, 94.9% of the implants survived. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05); both treatments are equivalent (confidence interval 90%) for the equivalence interval [-0.1; 0.1]. 43.5% of the cases showed no reduction in the augmentation height 5 years after implant insertion, when augmentation was performed with autogenous bone, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, no resorption was found in 50% of the augmented areas. Up to 25% reduction in augmentation height was found in 47.8% in the autogenous and in 45.8% in the Bio-Oss(®) group. In 8.7% of all cases in the autogenous bone group and in 4.2 % in the Bio-Oss(®) group, up to 50% of the augmented height was resorbed.
CONCLUSION: After a 5 years evaluation period, Bio-Oss(®) as material for the indication maxillary sinus augmentation shows to be equivalent to autogenous bone grafting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sinus augmentation was performed using mandibular bone grafts or Bio-Oss(®). In the autogenous bone group, 70 implants were placed in 23 patients, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, 24 patients received 98 implants. Fisher's exact test and equivalence testing were used to compare implant survival rates.
RESULTS: The overall survival rate of the implants was 95.8% 5 years after implant insertion. In the autogenous bone group, the implants had a survival rate of 97.1%, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, 94.9% of the implants survived. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05); both treatments are equivalent (confidence interval 90%) for the equivalence interval [-0.1; 0.1]. 43.5% of the cases showed no reduction in the augmentation height 5 years after implant insertion, when augmentation was performed with autogenous bone, while in the Bio-Oss(®) group, no resorption was found in 50% of the augmented areas. Up to 25% reduction in augmentation height was found in 47.8% in the autogenous and in 45.8% in the Bio-Oss(®) group. In 8.7% of all cases in the autogenous bone group and in 4.2 % in the Bio-Oss(®) group, up to 50% of the augmented height was resorbed.
CONCLUSION: After a 5 years evaluation period, Bio-Oss(®) as material for the indication maxillary sinus augmentation shows to be equivalent to autogenous bone grafting.