{"title":"患者报告的静态计算机辅助窦侧窗截骨术愈合：一项随机对照试验","authors":"Nattakarn Narongchai, Sirida Arunjaroensuk, Keskanya Subbalekha, Paksinee Kamolratanakul, Atiphan Pimkhaokham, Nikos Mattheos","doi":"10.1111/cid.70057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The primary aim was to investigate differences in patient-reported healing outcomes between static computer-assisted sinus floor augmentation (SCA-SFA) and the conventional freehand approach (SFA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patient-reported healing outcomes were recorded in visual analog scale (VAS) on days 1–7 and 14, and intra and postoperative complications were assessed on weeks 2 and 4 after surgery. Operation time and operators' assessment of efficacy for SCA-SFA utility were recorded. Independent t-tests and Chi-square exact tests were performed for statistical evaluation between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Forty patients underwent lateral sinus augmentation (20 freehand-SFA + 20 SCA-SFA). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to PROMs and intra, postoperative complications, apart from a higher level of swelling for SCA-SFA patients on day 2 after surgery (<i>p</i> = 0.04). The use of SCA-SFA significantly reduced the time needed to conduct the window osteotomy (SFA 18.56 ± 12.17 min vs. SCA-SFA 11.43 ± 4.75 min; <i>p</i> = 0.022) and the total surgery duration (SFA 69.89 ± 20.08 min vs. SCA-SFA 56.24 ± 16.01 min; <i>p</i> = 0.023).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Within the limitations of the study, SCA-SFA should be preferred when the reduction of surgical time is a priority while the costs of the intervention do not play a major role, and the design of the surgical guide should strive for minimal invasiveness.</p>\n \n <p><b>Clinical Trial Registry:</b> TCTR20230427005</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70057","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Reported Healing of Static Computer-Assisted Sinus Lateral Window Osteotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Nattakarn Narongchai, Sirida Arunjaroensuk, Keskanya Subbalekha, Paksinee Kamolratanakul, Atiphan Pimkhaokham, Nikos Mattheos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.70057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>The primary aim was to investigate differences in patient-reported healing outcomes between static computer-assisted sinus floor augmentation (SCA-SFA) and the conventional freehand approach (SFA).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patient-reported healing outcomes were recorded in visual analog scale (VAS) on days 1–7 and 14, and intra and postoperative complications were assessed on weeks 2 and 4 after surgery. Operation time and operators' assessment of efficacy for SCA-SFA utility were recorded. Independent t-tests and Chi-square exact tests were performed for statistical evaluation between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Forty patients underwent lateral sinus augmentation (20 freehand-SFA + 20 SCA-SFA). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to PROMs and intra, postoperative complications, apart from a higher level of swelling for SCA-SFA patients on day 2 after surgery (<i>p</i> = 0.04). The use of SCA-SFA significantly reduced the time needed to conduct the window osteotomy (SFA 18.56 ± 12.17 min vs. SCA-SFA 11.43 ± 4.75 min; <i>p</i> = 0.022) and the total surgery duration (SFA 69.89 ± 20.08 min vs. SCA-SFA 56.24 ± 16.01 min; <i>p</i> = 0.023).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Within the limitations of the study, SCA-SFA should be preferred when the reduction of surgical time is a priority while the costs of the intervention do not play a major role, and the design of the surgical guide should strive for minimal invasiveness.</p>\\n \\n <p><b>Clinical Trial Registry:</b> TCTR20230427005</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70057\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70057\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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 Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70057","RegionNum":2,"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
目的研究静态计算机辅助窦底增强术（SCA-SFA）和传统徒手入路（SFA）在患者报告的愈合结果上的差异。材料和方法采用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）记录患者术后1-7天和14天的愈合情况，并于术后2周和4周评估手术内和术后并发症。记录手术时间和操作者对SCA-SFA效用的疗效评价。组间统计学评价采用独立t检验和卡方精确检验。结果40例患者行外侧窦增强术（20例徒手sfa + 20例SCA-SFA）。除了术后第2天SCA-SFA患者肿胀程度较高外，两组患者在PROMs及术后并发症方面无统计学差异（p = 0.04）。使用SCA-SFA可显著缩短窗切骨时间（SFA 18.56±12.17 min vs SCA-SFA 11.43±4.75 min）；p = 0.022)和总手术时间(SFA组69.89±20.08 min vs. SCA-SFA组56.24±16.01 min；p = 0.023)。结论在本研究范围内，当以缩短手术时间为首要目标，干预费用不占主要地位，且手术指南设计应以微创为目标时，应优先选择SCA-SFA。临床试验注册：TCTR20230427005
Patient-Reported Healing of Static Computer-Assisted Sinus Lateral Window Osteotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Objective
The primary aim was to investigate differences in patient-reported healing outcomes between static computer-assisted sinus floor augmentation (SCA-SFA) and the conventional freehand approach (SFA).
Material and Methods
Patient-reported healing outcomes were recorded in visual analog scale (VAS) on days 1–7 and 14, and intra and postoperative complications were assessed on weeks 2 and 4 after surgery. Operation time and operators' assessment of efficacy for SCA-SFA utility were recorded. Independent t-tests and Chi-square exact tests were performed for statistical evaluation between groups.
Results
Forty patients underwent lateral sinus augmentation (20 freehand-SFA + 20 SCA-SFA). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to PROMs and intra, postoperative complications, apart from a higher level of swelling for SCA-SFA patients on day 2 after surgery (p = 0.04). The use of SCA-SFA significantly reduced the time needed to conduct the window osteotomy (SFA 18.56 ± 12.17 min vs. SCA-SFA 11.43 ± 4.75 min; p = 0.022) and the total surgery duration (SFA 69.89 ± 20.08 min vs. SCA-SFA 56.24 ± 16.01 min; p = 0.023).
Conclusions
Within the limitations of the study, SCA-SFA should be preferred when the reduction of surgical time is a priority while the costs of the intervention do not play a major role, and the design of the surgical guide should strive for minimal invasiveness.
期刊介绍：
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
