Kazem Khiabani, Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq, Ehsan Mostajeran
{"title":"微创窗口重新定位技术治疗窦底抬高:临床和影像学研究","authors":"Kazem Khiabani, Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq, Ehsan Mostajeran","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether a less invasive window repositioning technique could provide a feasible, safe, and reliable lateral sinus augmentation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The less-invasive window repositioning technique using a piezoelectric saw was performed on adult patient candidates for lateral sinus floor elevation. The augmented bone height (primary outcome variable), bone length, and posthealing outcome variables were evaluated to determine the augmentation adequacy, safety, and reliability of this technique overall and in one- and two-implant groups with different window dimensions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and Pearson correlation analysis. P < .05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 consecutive sinus floor elevations with simultaneous placement of 66 implants (one-implant: 34, two-implant: 16) were performed on 44 subjects (72% men) with a mean age of 46.7 ± 10.3 years and followed for a mean of 13.28 ± 3.5 months. The overall, one-implant, and two-implant group mean window sizes were 31.38 ± 6.78 mm<sup>2</sup>, 28.38 ± 4.2 mm<sup>2</sup>, and 37.75 ± 6.88 mm<sup>2</sup>, respectively. The mean overall augmented bone height and length were 12.3 ± 1.04 mm and 19.67 ± 2.01 mm, respectively. The mean window size was significantly smaller in the one-implant group versus the two-implant group (P < .001). However, there was no correlation between window size and augmented bone height (r = -0.9, P = .54) and length (r = 0.05, P = .68). The posthealing outcome variables showed perfect window integration without soft tissue ingrowth. Six sinus perforations (12%) during membrane elevation that were not related to window osteotomy were observed and were appropriately managed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The less-invasive window repositioning technique is feasible, safe, and reliable for appropriate sinus augmentation in height and length. The reduction of window dimension does not influence the feasibility, augmentation adequacy, and surgical safety and does not increase surgical risks or membrane perforation. The repositioned window showed proper integration. Also, sinus floor elevation through this technique is an experience-based surgery that requires delicate instruments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 2","pages":"303-312"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Less Invasive Window Repositioning Technique for Sinus Floor Elevation: A Clinical and Radiographic Study\",\"authors\":\"Kazem Khiabani, Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq, Ehsan Mostajeran\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether a less invasive window repositioning technique could provide a feasible, safe, and reliable lateral sinus augmentation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The less-invasive window repositioning technique using a piezoelectric saw was performed on adult patient candidates for lateral sinus floor elevation. The augmented bone height (primary outcome variable), bone length, and posthealing outcome variables were evaluated to determine the augmentation adequacy, safety, and reliability of this technique overall and in one- and two-implant groups with different window dimensions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and Pearson correlation analysis. P < .05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 consecutive sinus floor elevations with simultaneous placement of 66 implants (one-implant: 34, two-implant: 16) were performed on 44 subjects (72% men) with a mean age of 46.7 ± 10.3 years and followed for a mean of 13.28 ± 3.5 months. The overall, one-implant, and two-implant group mean window sizes were 31.38 ± 6.78 mm<sup>2</sup>, 28.38 ± 4.2 mm<sup>2</sup>, and 37.75 ± 6.88 mm<sup>2</sup>, respectively. The mean overall augmented bone height and length were 12.3 ± 1.04 mm and 19.67 ± 2.01 mm, respectively. The mean window size was significantly smaller in the one-implant group versus the two-implant group (P < .001). However, there was no correlation between window size and augmented bone height (r = -0.9, P = .54) and length (r = 0.05, P = .68). The posthealing outcome variables showed perfect window integration without soft tissue ingrowth. Six sinus perforations (12%) during membrane elevation that were not related to window osteotomy were observed and were appropriately managed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The less-invasive window repositioning technique is feasible, safe, and reliable for appropriate sinus augmentation in height and length. The reduction of window dimension does not influence the feasibility, augmentation adequacy, and surgical safety and does not increase surgical risks or membrane perforation. The repositioned window showed proper integration. Also, sinus floor elevation through this technique is an experience-based surgery that requires delicate instruments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"303-312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9570\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"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":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9570","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:确定一种侵入性较小的窗口重新定位技术是否可以提供一种可行、安全、可靠的外侧窦增强术。材料和方法:使用压电锯的微创窗口重新定位技术对外侧窦底抬高的成年患者进行了治疗。对增强骨高度(主要结果变量)、骨长度和修复后结果变量进行评估,以确定该技术在整体上以及在具有不同窗口尺寸的单种植体和双种植体组中的增强充分性、安全性和可靠性。资料分析采用描述性统计、卡方检验和Pearson相关分析。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:44例患者(72%为男性)共进行了50次连续窦底提升术,同时放置了66颗种植体(单种植体34颗,双种植体16颗),平均年龄46.7±10.3岁,平均随访13.28±3.5个月。整体、单种植体组和双种植体组的平均窗口大小分别为31.38±6.78 mm2、28.38±4.2 mm2和37.75±6.88 mm2。平均总增强骨高度和长度分别为12.3±1.04 mm和19.67±2.01 mm。单种植体组的平均窗口大小明显小于双种植体组(P < 0.001)。然而,窗大小与增强骨高度(r = -0.9, P = 0.54)和长度(r = 0.05, P = 0.68)没有相关性。术后结果变量显示无软组织长入的完美窗口整合。在膜抬高过程中观察到6例(12%)与窗截骨无关的鼻窦穿孔,并进行了适当的处理。结论:微创窦窗复位技术在适当的鼻窦高度和长度上是可行、安全、可靠的。窗口尺寸的减小不会影响手术的可行性、充分性和手术安全性,也不会增加手术风险或膜穿孔。重新定位的窗口显示出适当的整合。此外,通过这种技术进行窦底抬高是一种基于经验的手术,需要精密的器械。
Less Invasive Window Repositioning Technique for Sinus Floor Elevation: A Clinical and Radiographic Study
Purpose: To determine whether a less invasive window repositioning technique could provide a feasible, safe, and reliable lateral sinus augmentation.
Materials and methods: The less-invasive window repositioning technique using a piezoelectric saw was performed on adult patient candidates for lateral sinus floor elevation. The augmented bone height (primary outcome variable), bone length, and posthealing outcome variables were evaluated to determine the augmentation adequacy, safety, and reliability of this technique overall and in one- and two-implant groups with different window dimensions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and Pearson correlation analysis. P < .05 was considered significant.
Results: A total of 50 consecutive sinus floor elevations with simultaneous placement of 66 implants (one-implant: 34, two-implant: 16) were performed on 44 subjects (72% men) with a mean age of 46.7 ± 10.3 years and followed for a mean of 13.28 ± 3.5 months. The overall, one-implant, and two-implant group mean window sizes were 31.38 ± 6.78 mm2, 28.38 ± 4.2 mm2, and 37.75 ± 6.88 mm2, respectively. The mean overall augmented bone height and length were 12.3 ± 1.04 mm and 19.67 ± 2.01 mm, respectively. The mean window size was significantly smaller in the one-implant group versus the two-implant group (P < .001). However, there was no correlation between window size and augmented bone height (r = -0.9, P = .54) and length (r = 0.05, P = .68). The posthealing outcome variables showed perfect window integration without soft tissue ingrowth. Six sinus perforations (12%) during membrane elevation that were not related to window osteotomy were observed and were appropriately managed.
Conclusion: The less-invasive window repositioning technique is feasible, safe, and reliable for appropriate sinus augmentation in height and length. The reduction of window dimension does not influence the feasibility, augmentation adequacy, and surgical safety and does not increase surgical risks or membrane perforation. The repositioned window showed proper integration. Also, sinus floor elevation through this technique is an experience-based surgery that requires delicate instruments.
期刊介绍:
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.