The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants · 2013
Comparison of a novel trephine drill with conventional rotary instruments for maxillary sinus floor elevation.
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.
Kazancioglu Hakki Oguz, Tek Mustafa, Ezirganli Seref, Mihmanli Ahmet
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare a newly designed trephine drill (SLA KIT, Neobiotech) with conventional rotary instruments for maxillary sinus floor elevation based on operative time, postoperative pain, and perforation rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were treated with a bilateral sinus floor elevation procedure with rotary trephine and conventional instruments. One side was treated with conventional rotary instruments, while the contralateral side was treated with rotary trephine instruments, with a 2-week gap between surgeries. Operative time was measured with a chronometer in seconds as the time from soft tissue incision to primary closure of the incision with the last suture. Pain was scored on a 10-point visual analog scale at 24 hours after surgery. The presence of tears and perforations was determined by direct visualization and the Valsalva maneuver.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in the study. Operative time was shorter when the trephine drill was used (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than with conventional rotary instruments (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes). Sinus membrane perforation was observed in eight patients when conventional rotary instruments were used, while the trephine drill resulted in two sinus perforations. Mean pain scores were 2.01 ± 0.11 after using the trephine drill and 2.25 ± 0.76 when conventional rotary instruments were used. No significant difference was found in postoperative pain scores.
CONCLUSION: The trephine drill technique may result in decreased perforation rates and operative time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were treated with a bilateral sinus floor elevation procedure with rotary trephine and conventional instruments. One side was treated with conventional rotary instruments, while the contralateral side was treated with rotary trephine instruments, with a 2-week gap between surgeries. Operative time was measured with a chronometer in seconds as the time from soft tissue incision to primary closure of the incision with the last suture. Pain was scored on a 10-point visual analog scale at 24 hours after surgery. The presence of tears and perforations was determined by direct visualization and the Valsalva maneuver.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in the study. Operative time was shorter when the trephine drill was used (11.1 ± 2.4 minutes) than with conventional rotary instruments (15.1 ± 2.9 minutes). Sinus membrane perforation was observed in eight patients when conventional rotary instruments were used, while the trephine drill resulted in two sinus perforations. Mean pain scores were 2.01 ± 0.11 after using the trephine drill and 2.25 ± 0.76 when conventional rotary instruments were used. No significant difference was found in postoperative pain scores.
CONCLUSION: The trephine drill technique may result in decreased perforation rates and operative time.