{"title":"前上颌水平牙槽骨增加的支架螺钉技术:1 - 5年回顾性研究","authors":"Siyuan Wang, Xiaoyu Chen, Weijie Wu, Zhaoting Ling, Sijia Yang, Xiaoting Shen, Fuming He","doi":"10.1111/clr.14428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1‐ to 5‐year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).MethodsThis retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.ResultsA total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.009, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three‐dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow‐up periods (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tenting Screw Technique for Horizontal Alveolar Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla: A 1‐ to 5‐Year Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Siyuan Wang, Xiaoyu Chen, Weijie Wu, Zhaoting Ling, Sijia Yang, Xiaoting Shen, Fuming He\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1‐ to 5‐year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).MethodsThis retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.ResultsA total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.009, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three‐dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow‐up periods (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"183 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14428\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14428","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评价采用支架螺钉(TS)技术种植牙1 ~ 5年的临床疗效,并与常规引导骨再生(GBR)进行比较。方法回顾性研究采用TS或传统GBR技术放置种植体。通过重建锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)数据评估水平和体积骨增益。记录并发症、生物学参数、美学评分和患者满意度。结果共纳入42例患者75颗种植体,其中TS组缺损部位20个,GBR组缺损部位22个。经过1 - 5年的随访,没有种植体失败,种植体成活率达到100%。愈合期后,TS组在假体肩下1,3,5 mm处水平骨长宽分别为2.85±1.42 mm, 3.37±1.79 mm和3.27±1.68 mm,显著超过GBR组(p = 0.009, p = 0.002, p = 0.002)。同样,TS组和GBR组在愈合期后的三维体积骨吸收率分别为16.5%和29.3% (p <;0.001),随访期后分别增加到36.7%和50.7% (p <;0.001)。TS组总PPDs明显小于GBR组(2.50 (2.25,2.50)mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, p = 0.038)。在种植体周围软组织健康、美观和患者满意度方面没有观察到其他显著差异。结论与传统的GBR技术相比,支架螺钉技术具有更好的骨增强效果,种植体周围软组织健康、美观和患者满意度,是重建上颌前牙槽嵴萎缩的可靠治疗选择。
Tenting Screw Technique for Horizontal Alveolar Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla: A 1‐ to 5‐Year Retrospective Study
ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1‐ to 5‐year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).MethodsThis retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.ResultsA total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (p = 0.009, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three‐dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (p < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow‐up periods (p < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, p = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.