眼袋与非眼袋技术在修复恒河猴上颌窦膜大穿孔中的应用

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Yinxiu Liao, Jing Wu, Liang Xia, Lu Chen, Mohan Wang, Xiping Wang, Yuqiong Zhou, Wenze Chen, Zihan Yang, Guiqiang Fu, Jiacheng Jin, Duohong Zou
{"title":"眼袋与非眼袋技术在修复恒河猴上颌窦膜大穿孔中的应用","authors":"Yinxiu Liao, Jing Wu, Liang Xia, Lu Chen, Mohan Wang, Xiping Wang, Yuqiong Zhou, Wenze Chen, Zihan Yang, Guiqiang Fu, Jiacheng Jin, Duohong Zou","doi":"10.1002/jper.24-0717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundSinus membrane perforations occasionally occur during sinus lifting procedures. This study utilized rhesus monkey models to compare the effectiveness of two techniques (pouch and non‐pouch methods) in repairing large perforations, with a focus on their impact on bone regeneration.MethodsIn five male rhesus monkeys, both sides of the sinus membrane were elevated and perforated. Each sinus was assigned to one of two groups: (a) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane and all sinus walls formed a pouch (pouch Group); (b) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane (non‐pouch Group). Both sinuses were grafted with the same amount of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM). Follow‐up computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 1 and 9 months, and all monkeys were euthanized at 9 months for micro‐CT and histomorphometric analysis.ResultsThe quantitative analysis of CT images showed no significant differences in the augmented height, density, and volume of grafted bone between the two groups at 1‐month and 9‐month follow‐up. Similarly, the morphometric and histomorphometric analyses showed no significant differences. However, a notable discrepancy in bone modeling was observed between the two time points (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic><jats:sub>graft‐resorption</jats:sub> = 0.0227) along with a significant difference in the sphericity of new bone (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic><jats:sub>sphericity</jats:sub> = 0.0446).ConclusionsThe pouch technique may lead to more stable outcomes compared to the non‐pouch technique, which has been documented as a promising approach to mitigate graft volume loss and enhance graft stability and aggregation. Besides, no significant difference was seen between pouch and non‐pouch techniques in promoting bone regeneration for repairing perforations of the maxillary sinus membrane.Plain Language SummaryThis study explored two surgical techniques for repairing large perforations in the sinus membrane during dental procedures, focusing on the bone growth outcome. We compared the “Loma Linda Pouch” technique, which uses absorbable membrane to create a pouch that surrounds the inner surface of the sinus, to a traditional method. We measured various outcomes, including bone height, density, and overall volume, at 1 month and 9 months after surgery. Both techniques showed substantial and ideal bone growth, but the pouch method may help stabilize the bone graft and minimize graft volume loss in the long run. Importantly, both methods led to effective healing without major complications, and our findings showed that the absorbable membrane does not hinder new bone formation. These insights can assist dental professionals in selecting the most effective approach for sinus surgeries, ultimately improving the success of dental implants and enhancing patient outcomes.","PeriodicalId":16716,"journal":{"name":"Journal of periodontology","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pouch versus non‐pouch technique for repairing the maxillary sinus membrane large perforation in rhesus monkey\",\"authors\":\"Yinxiu Liao, Jing Wu, Liang Xia, Lu Chen, Mohan Wang, Xiping Wang, Yuqiong Zhou, Wenze Chen, Zihan Yang, Guiqiang Fu, Jiacheng Jin, Duohong Zou\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jper.24-0717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundSinus membrane perforations occasionally occur during sinus lifting procedures. This study utilized rhesus monkey models to compare the effectiveness of two techniques (pouch and non‐pouch methods) in repairing large perforations, with a focus on their impact on bone regeneration.MethodsIn five male rhesus monkeys, both sides of the sinus membrane were elevated and perforated. Each sinus was assigned to one of two groups: (a) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane and all sinus walls formed a pouch (pouch Group); (b) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane (non‐pouch Group). Both sinuses were grafted with the same amount of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM). Follow‐up computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 1 and 9 months, and all monkeys were euthanized at 9 months for micro‐CT and histomorphometric analysis.ResultsThe quantitative analysis of CT images showed no significant differences in the augmented height, density, and volume of grafted bone between the two groups at 1‐month and 9‐month follow‐up. Similarly, the morphometric and histomorphometric analyses showed no significant differences. However, a notable discrepancy in bone modeling was observed between the two time points (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic><jats:sub>graft‐resorption</jats:sub> = 0.0227) along with a significant difference in the sphericity of new bone (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic><jats:sub>sphericity</jats:sub> = 0.0446).ConclusionsThe pouch technique may lead to more stable outcomes compared to the non‐pouch technique, which has been documented as a promising approach to mitigate graft volume loss and enhance graft stability and aggregation. Besides, no significant difference was seen between pouch and non‐pouch techniques in promoting bone regeneration for repairing perforations of the maxillary sinus membrane.Plain Language SummaryThis study explored two surgical techniques for repairing large perforations in the sinus membrane during dental procedures, focusing on the bone growth outcome. We compared the “Loma Linda Pouch” technique, which uses absorbable membrane to create a pouch that surrounds the inner surface of the sinus, to a traditional method. We measured various outcomes, including bone height, density, and overall volume, at 1 month and 9 months after surgery. Both techniques showed substantial and ideal bone growth, but the pouch method may help stabilize the bone graft and minimize graft volume loss in the long run. Importantly, both methods led to effective healing without major complications, and our findings showed that the absorbable membrane does not hinder new bone formation. These insights can assist dental professionals in selecting the most effective approach for sinus surgeries, ultimately improving the success of dental implants and enhancing patient outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jper.24-0717\",\"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":"Journal of periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jper.24-0717","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

背景:在鼻窦提升术中偶尔会发生鼻窦膜穿孔。本研究利用恒河猴模型来比较两种技术(眼袋法和非眼袋法)修复大穿孔的有效性,重点研究它们对骨再生的影响。方法5只雄性恒河猴鼻窦两侧膜升高穿孔。每个窦被分为两组:(a)胶原膜覆盖穿孔的窦膜,所有窦壁形成袋状(袋状组);(b)胶原膜覆盖穿孔窦膜(无眼袋组)。用等量的脱蛋白牛骨矿物质(DBBM)移植两个鼻窦。在1个月和9个月时进行随访的计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描,并在9个月时对所有猴子实施安乐死,进行显微CT和组织形态学分析。结果随访1个月和9个月时,CT图像定量分析显示,两组患者移植骨的增强高度、密度和体积均无显著差异。同样,形态计量学和组织计量学分析也没有显着差异。然而,在两个时间点之间观察到骨建模的显著差异(移植物-吸收= 0.0227)以及新骨的球形度的显著差异(球形度= 0.0446)。结论与非眼袋技术相比,眼袋技术可能导致更稳定的结果,这是一种有前途的方法,可以减轻移植物体积损失,提高移植物的稳定性和聚集性。此外,在修复上颌窦膜穿孔时,眼袋和非眼袋技术在促进骨再生方面没有显著差异。本研究探讨了在牙科手术中修复窦膜大穿孔的两种外科技术,重点关注骨生长结果。我们将“洛玛琳达眼袋”技术与传统方法进行了比较,该技术使用可吸收膜在鼻窦内表面形成眼袋。我们在术后1个月和9个月测量了各种结果,包括骨高度、密度和总体积。两种技术都显示了大量和理想的骨生长,但从长远来看,眼袋法可能有助于稳定骨移植物并减少移植物体积损失。重要的是,这两种方法都能有效愈合,没有严重的并发症,我们的研究结果表明,可吸收膜不会阻碍新骨的形成。这些见解可以帮助牙科专业人员选择最有效的鼻窦手术方法,最终提高种植牙的成功率并提高患者的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pouch versus non‐pouch technique for repairing the maxillary sinus membrane large perforation in rhesus monkey
BackgroundSinus membrane perforations occasionally occur during sinus lifting procedures. This study utilized rhesus monkey models to compare the effectiveness of two techniques (pouch and non‐pouch methods) in repairing large perforations, with a focus on their impact on bone regeneration.MethodsIn five male rhesus monkeys, both sides of the sinus membrane were elevated and perforated. Each sinus was assigned to one of two groups: (a) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane and all sinus walls formed a pouch (pouch Group); (b) the collagen membrane covered the perforated sinus membrane (non‐pouch Group). Both sinuses were grafted with the same amount of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM). Follow‐up computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 1 and 9 months, and all monkeys were euthanized at 9 months for micro‐CT and histomorphometric analysis.ResultsThe quantitative analysis of CT images showed no significant differences in the augmented height, density, and volume of grafted bone between the two groups at 1‐month and 9‐month follow‐up. Similarly, the morphometric and histomorphometric analyses showed no significant differences. However, a notable discrepancy in bone modeling was observed between the two time points (Pgraft‐resorption = 0.0227) along with a significant difference in the sphericity of new bone (Psphericity = 0.0446).ConclusionsThe pouch technique may lead to more stable outcomes compared to the non‐pouch technique, which has been documented as a promising approach to mitigate graft volume loss and enhance graft stability and aggregation. Besides, no significant difference was seen between pouch and non‐pouch techniques in promoting bone regeneration for repairing perforations of the maxillary sinus membrane.Plain Language SummaryThis study explored two surgical techniques for repairing large perforations in the sinus membrane during dental procedures, focusing on the bone growth outcome. We compared the “Loma Linda Pouch” technique, which uses absorbable membrane to create a pouch that surrounds the inner surface of the sinus, to a traditional method. We measured various outcomes, including bone height, density, and overall volume, at 1 month and 9 months after surgery. Both techniques showed substantial and ideal bone growth, but the pouch method may help stabilize the bone graft and minimize graft volume loss in the long run. Importantly, both methods led to effective healing without major complications, and our findings showed that the absorbable membrane does not hinder new bone formation. These insights can assist dental professionals in selecting the most effective approach for sinus surgeries, ultimately improving the success of dental implants and enhancing patient outcomes.
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
Journal of periodontology
Journal of periodontology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Periodontology publishes articles relevant to the science and practice of periodontics and related areas.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信