一项符合const标准的随机对照试验:骨密度化与骨切开术同时植入经瓣窦抬高。

IF 1.7
İrem Asya Kafadar-Gürbüz, Tayfun Günbay, Gözde Işik, Olkan Gürbüz, Ömer Faruk Dadaş
{"title":"一项符合const标准的随机对照试验:骨密度化与骨切开术同时植入经瓣窦抬高。","authors":"İrem Asya Kafadar-Gürbüz, Tayfun Günbay, Gözde Işik, Olkan Gürbüz, Ömer Faruk Dadaş","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Transcrestal sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement is a common approach in cases with reduced posterior maxillary bone height. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of osseodensification and osteotomy in transcrestal sinus lift with simultaneous implant placement in patients with limited posterior maxillary bone height.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized clinical trial included 28 patients with 42 implants, divided into two groups: osseodensification (n=22) and osteotomy (n=20). The primary outcome was implant stability, measured by insertion torque and ISQ. The mean ISQ values were 67.50 ± 10.89 for Group 1 and 75.09 ± 7.87 for Group 2, a difference that was also statistically significant. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone loss, implant survival, postoperative pain (VAS), analgesic consumption, and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP). Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, linear mixed-effects models, and Brunner-Langer models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary stability was significantly higher in the osseodensification group (ISQ: 75.09 ± 7.87 vs. 67.50 ± 10.89; p = 0.013; mean difference: 7.59, 95% CI: 1.68-13.50) and (Torque: 32.95 ± 6.67 vs. 26.25 ± 9.98; p = 0.008; mean difference: 6.70, 95% CI: 1.87-11.53). Both groups had a 100% implant survival rate. Marginal bone loss was comparable (p = 0.459). Analgesic consumption was significantly lower in the osseodensification group (mean difference: -1.36, 95% CI: -2.44 to -0.28; p = 0.016). OHIP scores were significantly lower after prosthetic loading in the osseodensification group (p = 0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Osseodensification yielded greater primary stability and improved patient-reported outcomes compared to osteotomy, with similar implant survival and bone loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A CONSORT-Compliant Randomized Comparative Trial of Osseodensification Versus Osteotome Technique for Transcrestal Sinus Elevation with Simultaneous Implant Placement.\",\"authors\":\"İrem Asya Kafadar-Gürbüz, Tayfun Günbay, Gözde Işik, Olkan Gürbüz, Ömer Faruk Dadaş\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.11566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Transcrestal sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement is a common approach in cases with reduced posterior maxillary bone height. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of osseodensification and osteotomy in transcrestal sinus lift with simultaneous implant placement in patients with limited posterior maxillary bone height.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized clinical trial included 28 patients with 42 implants, divided into two groups: osseodensification (n=22) and osteotomy (n=20). The primary outcome was implant stability, measured by insertion torque and ISQ. The mean ISQ values were 67.50 ± 10.89 for Group 1 and 75.09 ± 7.87 for Group 2, a difference that was also statistically significant. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone loss, implant survival, postoperative pain (VAS), analgesic consumption, and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP). Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, linear mixed-effects models, and Brunner-Langer models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary stability was significantly higher in the osseodensification group (ISQ: 75.09 ± 7.87 vs. 67.50 ± 10.89; p = 0.013; mean difference: 7.59, 95% CI: 1.68-13.50) and (Torque: 32.95 ± 6.67 vs. 26.25 ± 9.98; p = 0.008; mean difference: 6.70, 95% CI: 1.87-11.53). Both groups had a 100% implant survival rate. Marginal bone loss was comparable (p = 0.459). Analgesic consumption was significantly lower in the osseodensification group (mean difference: -1.36, 95% CI: -2.44 to -0.28; p = 0.016). OHIP scores were significantly lower after prosthetic loading in the osseodensification group (p = 0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Osseodensification yielded greater primary stability and improved patient-reported outcomes compared to osteotomy, with similar implant survival and bone loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:经瓣窦提升术同时植入种植体是治疗上颌后骨高度降低的常用方法。本研究旨在比较上颌后骨高度有限的患者在经牙窦提升和同时种植体放置时骨密度和截骨的结果。材料和方法:本前瞻性随机临床试验纳入28例患者,植入42个种植体,分为两组:骨密度组(n=22)和截骨组(n=20)。主要结果是植入物的稳定性,通过插入扭矩和ISQ来衡量。组1的平均ISQ值为67.50±10.89,组2的平均ISQ值为75.09±7.87,差异也有统计学意义。次要结局包括边缘骨质流失、种植体存活、术后疼痛(VAS)、止痛药消耗和口腔健康相关生活质量(OHIP)。统计分析包括t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验、卡方检验、线性混合效应模型和Brunner-Langer模型。结果:骨密度组的初始稳定性显著高于对照组(ISQ: 75.09±7.87 vs. 67.50±10.89;p = 0.013;平均差值:7.59,95% CI: 1.68 ~ 13.50)和(Torque: 32.95±6.67 vs. 26.25±9.98;p = 0.008;平均差值:6.70,95% CI: 1.87 ~ 11.53)。两组种植体成活率均为100%。边缘骨质流失比较(p = 0.459)。骨增密组镇痛药用量显著降低(平均差异:-1.36,95% CI: -2.44 ~ -0.28; p = 0.016)。骨密度组假体加载后OHIP评分明显降低(p = 0.008)。结论:与截骨相比,骨致密化具有更高的初始稳定性和改善的患者报告结果,种植体存活和骨丢失相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A CONSORT-Compliant Randomized Comparative Trial of Osseodensification Versus Osteotome Technique for Transcrestal Sinus Elevation with Simultaneous Implant Placement.

Purpose: Transcrestal sinus lifting with simultaneous implant placement is a common approach in cases with reduced posterior maxillary bone height. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of osseodensification and osteotomy in transcrestal sinus lift with simultaneous implant placement in patients with limited posterior maxillary bone height.

Materials and methods: This prospective, randomized clinical trial included 28 patients with 42 implants, divided into two groups: osseodensification (n=22) and osteotomy (n=20). The primary outcome was implant stability, measured by insertion torque and ISQ. The mean ISQ values were 67.50 ± 10.89 for Group 1 and 75.09 ± 7.87 for Group 2, a difference that was also statistically significant. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone loss, implant survival, postoperative pain (VAS), analgesic consumption, and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP). Statistical analyses included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, linear mixed-effects models, and Brunner-Langer models.

Results: Primary stability was significantly higher in the osseodensification group (ISQ: 75.09 ± 7.87 vs. 67.50 ± 10.89; p = 0.013; mean difference: 7.59, 95% CI: 1.68-13.50) and (Torque: 32.95 ± 6.67 vs. 26.25 ± 9.98; p = 0.008; mean difference: 6.70, 95% CI: 1.87-11.53). Both groups had a 100% implant survival rate. Marginal bone loss was comparable (p = 0.459). Analgesic consumption was significantly lower in the osseodensification group (mean difference: -1.36, 95% CI: -2.44 to -0.28; p = 0.016). OHIP scores were significantly lower after prosthetic loading in the osseodensification group (p = 0.008).

Conclusion: Osseodensification yielded greater primary stability and improved patient-reported outcomes compared to osteotomy, with similar implant survival and bone loss.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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