短长度与标准长度鼻窦底抬高种植体治疗萎缩性后上颌骨。

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Eik Schiegnitz, Nina Hill, Keyvan Sagheb, Jochem König, Kawe Sagheb, Bilal Al-Nawas
{"title":"短长度与标准长度鼻窦底抬高种植体治疗萎缩性后上颌骨。","authors":"Eik Schiegnitz,&nbsp;Nina Hill,&nbsp;Keyvan Sagheb,&nbsp;Jochem König,&nbsp;Kawe Sagheb,&nbsp;Bilal Al-Nawas","doi":"10.15644/asc56/2/5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>For this clinical study, the clinical and radiological outcome of 126 short dental implants (84 patients), inserted in pristine bone were compared with 312 standard length implants (156 patients), placed in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The short implant group (test group [TG]; mean follow-up (± standard deviation (SD) 56.6 ± 42.9 months) and the augmented group (control group [CG]; mean follow-up 41.6 ± 37.6 months) showed cumulative survival rates of 91.8% and 92.4%. Cumulative 5-year implant survival rates were 91.8% for the TG and 90.7% for the CG (p=0.421). Mean marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, with a mean MBL of 0.70 ± 0.72 mm in the TG and 0.96 ± 0.91 mm in the CG (p<0.001). A comparable and promising oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was observed in the control and test groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After over 3 years, short implants placed in the resorbed posterior maxilla obtained similar results to standard implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":7154,"journal":{"name":"Acta Stomatologica Croatica","volume":" ","pages":"143-153"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/62/a8/ASC_56(2)_143-153.PMC9262115.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.\",\"authors\":\"Eik Schiegnitz,&nbsp;Nina Hill,&nbsp;Keyvan Sagheb,&nbsp;Jochem König,&nbsp;Kawe Sagheb,&nbsp;Bilal Al-Nawas\",\"doi\":\"10.15644/asc56/2/5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>For this clinical study, the clinical and radiological outcome of 126 short dental implants (84 patients), inserted in pristine bone were compared with 312 standard length implants (156 patients), placed in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The short implant group (test group [TG]; mean follow-up (± standard deviation (SD) 56.6 ± 42.9 months) and the augmented group (control group [CG]; mean follow-up 41.6 ± 37.6 months) showed cumulative survival rates of 91.8% and 92.4%. Cumulative 5-year implant survival rates were 91.8% for the TG and 90.7% for the CG (p=0.421). Mean marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, with a mean MBL of 0.70 ± 0.72 mm in the TG and 0.96 ± 0.91 mm in the CG (p<0.001). A comparable and promising oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was observed in the control and test groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After over 3 years, short implants placed in the resorbed posterior maxilla obtained similar results to standard implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Stomatologica Croatica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"143-153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/62/a8/ASC_56(2)_143-153.PMC9262115.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Stomatologica Croatica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15644/asc56/2/5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Stomatologica Croatica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15644/asc56/2/5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:本临床研究的目的是比较短牙种植体置入原始骨与标准长度种植体置入结合窦底抬高的临床和影像学结果。材料和方法:在这项临床研究中,将126个短种植体(84例患者)与312个标准长度种植体(156例患者)的临床和放射学结果进行比较,这些种植体与上颌窦底提升手术相结合。结果:短种植体组(试验组[TG];平均随访时间(±标准差(SD) 56.6±42.9个月)和增强组(对照组[CG];平均随访41.6±37.6个月),累计生存率分别为91.8%和92.4%。TG组和CG组的累积5年种植体存活率分别为91.8%和90.7% (p=0.421)。TG组的平均边缘骨损失明显高于TG组,TG组的平均MBL为0.70±0.72 mm, CG组的平均MBL为0.96±0.91 mm(结论:在吸收后上颌放置短种植体3年多后,与标准种植体联合上颌窦底增强术获得相似的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.

Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.

Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.

Short versus Standard Length Implants with Sinus Floor Elevation for the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla.

Objectives: the aim of this clinical study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of short dental implants inserted in pristine bone to standard length implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation.

Materials and methods: For this clinical study, the clinical and radiological outcome of 126 short dental implants (84 patients), inserted in pristine bone were compared with 312 standard length implants (156 patients), placed in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures.

Results: The short implant group (test group [TG]; mean follow-up (± standard deviation (SD) 56.6 ± 42.9 months) and the augmented group (control group [CG]; mean follow-up 41.6 ± 37.6 months) showed cumulative survival rates of 91.8% and 92.4%. Cumulative 5-year implant survival rates were 91.8% for the TG and 90.7% for the CG (p=0.421). Mean marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the CG than in the TG, with a mean MBL of 0.70 ± 0.72 mm in the TG and 0.96 ± 0.91 mm in the CG (p<0.001). A comparable and promising oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was observed in the control and test groups.

Conclusions: After over 3 years, short implants placed in the resorbed posterior maxilla obtained similar results to standard implants combined with maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedures.

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
Acta Stomatologica Croatica
Acta Stomatologica Croatica DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
28.60%
发文量
32
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Acta Stomatologica Croatica (ASCRO) is a leading scientific non-profit journal in the field of dental, oral and cranio-facial sciences during the past 44 years in Croatia. ASCRO publishes original scientific and clinical papers, preliminary communications, case reports, book reviews, letters to the editor and news. Review articles are published by invitation from the Editor-in-Chief by acclaimed professionals in distinct fields of dental medicine. All manuscripts are subjected to peer review process.
×
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