骨结合 Ponto® 模型植入物的微创 Ponto 手术 (MIPS) 技术与保留组织的线性切口的比较

IF 0.9 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Carmen Fernández-Cedrón Bermejo, Elena Sánchez Fernández, María Costales Marcos, Faustino José Núñez Batalla, José Luis Llorente Pendás, Justo Ramón Gómez Martínez
{"title":"骨结合 Ponto® 模型植入物的微创 Ponto 手术 (MIPS) 技术与保留组织的线性切口的比较","authors":"Carmen Fernández-Cedrón Bermejo,&nbsp;Elena Sánchez Fernández,&nbsp;María Costales Marcos,&nbsp;Faustino José Núñez Batalla,&nbsp;José Luis Llorente Pendás,&nbsp;Justo Ramón Gómez Martínez","doi":"10.1016/j.otorri.2023.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>The surgery of osseointegrated implants has undergone different modifications over the years with the aim of achieving better results and facilitating the surgical technique. Today the most commonly used technique is the linear incision with tissue preservation and placement of the abutment and implant. The long-term success of this technique has served as the basis for the development of the so-called minimally invasive surgical approach (MIPS). This study compares the short-, medium- and long-term results between the classic linear incision technique and the MIPS technique.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>A prospective study was conducted on patients who had an osseointegrated implant placed between February 2016 and February 2020. A total of 59 surgeries were performed, 32 surgeries according to the linear incision technique with tissue preservation and 27 with MIPS technique. Outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month and 1 year.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Statistically significant differences were achieved between the two groups at 1 week after surgery. Eighty percent of the MIPS patients had Holgers grades 0–1 compared to 35% of the linear technique patients (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed at 1 month (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.457) and 1 year (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.228). One case with grade 4 was recorded which resulted in implant extrusion one month after surgery with the MIPS technique. A new osseointegrated implant was placed 2 months after the fall using the same MIPS technique with good results. We were also able to verify that the duration of surgery was much shorter with the MIPS technique and better tolerated in terms of postoperative discomfort by the patient.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In our experience, the MIPS technique is the technique of choice for surgery of osseointegrated Ponto model implants as it is simpler, faster and presents fewer problems in the immediate postoperative period, with similar long-term postoperative results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7019,"journal":{"name":"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola","volume":"75 4","pages":"Pages 210-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparación técnica Minimal Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) versus incisión lineal con preservación de tejidos en los implantes osteointegrados modelo Ponto®\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Fernández-Cedrón Bermejo,&nbsp;Elena Sánchez Fernández,&nbsp;María Costales Marcos,&nbsp;Faustino José Núñez Batalla,&nbsp;José Luis Llorente Pendás,&nbsp;Justo Ramón Gómez Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.otorri.2023.10.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>The surgery of osseointegrated implants has undergone different modifications over the years with the aim of achieving better results and facilitating the surgical technique. Today the most commonly used technique is the linear incision with tissue preservation and placement of the abutment and implant. The long-term success of this technique has served as the basis for the development of the so-called minimally invasive surgical approach (MIPS). This study compares the short-, medium- and long-term results between the classic linear incision technique and the MIPS technique.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>A prospective study was conducted on patients who had an osseointegrated implant placed between February 2016 and February 2020. A total of 59 surgeries were performed, 32 surgeries according to the linear incision technique with tissue preservation and 27 with MIPS technique. Outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month and 1 year.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Statistically significant differences were achieved between the two groups at 1 week after surgery. Eighty percent of the MIPS patients had Holgers grades 0–1 compared to 35% of the linear technique patients (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed at 1 month (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.457) and 1 year (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.228). One case with grade 4 was recorded which resulted in implant extrusion one month after surgery with the MIPS technique. A new osseointegrated implant was placed 2 months after the fall using the same MIPS technique with good results. We were also able to verify that the duration of surgery was much shorter with the MIPS technique and better tolerated in terms of postoperative discomfort by the patient.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In our experience, the MIPS technique is the technique of choice for surgery of osseointegrated Ponto model implants as it is simpler, faster and presents fewer problems in the immediate postoperative period, with similar long-term postoperative results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola\",\"volume\":\"75 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 210-216\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001651923001243\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001651923001243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的多年来,为了获得更好的效果和简化手术技术,骨结合种植手术经历了不同的修改。目前最常用的技术是线性切口,同时保留组织并植入基台和种植体。这种技术的长期成功为所谓的微创手术方法(MIPS)的发展奠定了基础。本研究比较了经典线性切口技术和 MIPS 技术的短期、中期和长期效果。材料和方法对 2016 年 2 月至 2020 年 2 月期间植入骨结合种植体的患者进行了前瞻性研究。共进行了 59 例手术,其中 32 例采用了保留组织的线性切口技术,27 例采用了 MIPS 技术。结果两组患者在术后 1 周时差异有统计学意义。80%的 MIPS 患者的 Holgers 分级为 0-1,而 35% 的线性技术患者的 Holgers 分级为 0-1(P = 0.001)。在术后 1 个月(p = 0.457)和 1 年(p = 0.228),两组患者在统计学上没有明显差异。在使用 MIPS 技术进行手术一个月后,有一例 4 级病例导致种植体挤出。跌倒后 2 个月,我们采用同样的 MIPS 技术植入了新的骨结合种植体,效果良好。结论 根据我们的经验,MIPS 技术是骨结合 Ponto 模型种植体手术的首选技术,因为它更简单、快捷,术后即刻出现的问题更少,而且术后长期效果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparación técnica Minimal Invasive Ponto Surgery (MIPS) versus incisión lineal con preservación de tejidos en los implantes osteointegrados modelo Ponto®

Background and objectives

The surgery of osseointegrated implants has undergone different modifications over the years with the aim of achieving better results and facilitating the surgical technique. Today the most commonly used technique is the linear incision with tissue preservation and placement of the abutment and implant. The long-term success of this technique has served as the basis for the development of the so-called minimally invasive surgical approach (MIPS). This study compares the short-, medium- and long-term results between the classic linear incision technique and the MIPS technique.

Material and methods

A prospective study was conducted on patients who had an osseointegrated implant placed between February 2016 and February 2020. A total of 59 surgeries were performed, 32 surgeries according to the linear incision technique with tissue preservation and 27 with MIPS technique. Outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month and 1 year.

Results

Statistically significant differences were achieved between the two groups at 1 week after surgery. Eighty percent of the MIPS patients had Holgers grades 0–1 compared to 35% of the linear technique patients (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed at 1 month (p = 0.457) and 1 year (p = 0.228). One case with grade 4 was recorded which resulted in implant extrusion one month after surgery with the MIPS technique. A new osseointegrated implant was placed 2 months after the fall using the same MIPS technique with good results. We were also able to verify that the duration of surgery was much shorter with the MIPS technique and better tolerated in terms of postoperative discomfort by the patient.

Conclusions

In our experience, the MIPS technique is the technique of choice for surgery of osseointegrated Ponto model implants as it is simpler, faster and presents fewer problems in the immediate postoperative period, with similar long-term postoperative results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Es la revista más importante en español dedicada a la especialidad. Ofrece progresos científicos y técnicos tanto a nivel de originales como de casos clínicos. Además, es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad Española de Otorrinolaringología y Patología Cérvico-Facial y está presente en los más prestigiosos índices de referencia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信