Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2014
Nasal Floor Elevation for Implant Treatment in the Atrophic Premaxilla: A Within-Patient Comparative Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Garcia-Denche Jesus Torres, Abbushi Abdullah, Hernández Gonzalo, Fernández-Tresguerres Isabel, Lopez-Cabarcos Enrique, Tamimi Faleh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding success of implants placed in atrophic premaxilla using the nasal floor elevation technique.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare implants placed in augmented bone in the anterior maxilla using the nasal floor elevation technique with implants placed in the maxillary sinus region using the sinus lift technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A within-patient controlled clinical trial was performed on 14 patients receiving 78 implants. The implants were assigned to one of two study groups on the basis of implant location. A total of 37 implants were placed in the nasal fossa region (NF group), and 41 implants were placed in the maxillary sinus region (MS group). Patients were followed up for 4.5 ± 2.2 years, with comparable follow-up times for implants in NF and MS groups (4.7 ± 2.1 and 4.9 ± 2.1 years, respectively; p > .05). Treatment outcomes were assessed and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Implant success rate was 89.2% in the NF group and 95.0% in the MS group, with no statistically significant difference between them (p > .05). No nasal or sinus membrane perforation or other complications were reported within the follow-up period. Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of residual bone height, augmented bone height, and implant diameter.
CONCLUSIONS: Nasal floor elevation is an effective and safe procedure that can be used for implant placement in atrophic premaxilla with success rates that are comparable to those of implants placed in the maxillary sinus.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare implants placed in augmented bone in the anterior maxilla using the nasal floor elevation technique with implants placed in the maxillary sinus region using the sinus lift technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A within-patient controlled clinical trial was performed on 14 patients receiving 78 implants. The implants were assigned to one of two study groups on the basis of implant location. A total of 37 implants were placed in the nasal fossa region (NF group), and 41 implants were placed in the maxillary sinus region (MS group). Patients were followed up for 4.5 ± 2.2 years, with comparable follow-up times for implants in NF and MS groups (4.7 ± 2.1 and 4.9 ± 2.1 years, respectively; p > .05). Treatment outcomes were assessed and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Implant success rate was 89.2% in the NF group and 95.0% in the MS group, with no statistically significant difference between them (p > .05). No nasal or sinus membrane perforation or other complications were reported within the follow-up period. Significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of residual bone height, augmented bone height, and implant diameter.
CONCLUSIONS: Nasal floor elevation is an effective and safe procedure that can be used for implant placement in atrophic premaxilla with success rates that are comparable to those of implants placed in the maxillary sinus.