中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (2): 61-65.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2018.06.003

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

骨劈开技术与Onlay 植骨技术用于上颌前牙美学区临床效果的对照研究

岳喜龙, 许胜, 柳忠豪, 周文娟   

  1. 264001 山东烟台烟台市口腔医院种植科
  • 出版日期:2018-06-10 发布日期:2021-09-06
  • 基金资助:
    山东省自然科学基金培养基金; 基金编号:ZR2015PH007

Comparative study between alveolar ridge splitting technique and augogenous onlay bone grafting technique in aesthetic implant dentistry

YUE Xilong, XU Sheng, LIU Zhonghao, et al   

  1. Department of Dental Implantation ,Yantai,Yantai Stomatological Hospital,Yantai 264001, Shandong Province, China
  • Online:2018-06-10 Published:2021-09-06

摘要: 目的: 本文回顾性研究骨劈开技术与Onlay植骨技术用于上颌前牙区美学种植修复的临床效果。方法: 选取烟台市口腔医院种植科自2013年1月~2015年1月共50位患者以骨劈开技术及Onlay植骨技术完成种植修复。其中骨劈开患者25例,Onaly植骨患者25例,骨劈开组同期植入种植体25枚,Onlay植骨组6个月后植入种植体25枚,4个月复诊进行单冠固定修复,术后随访24个月,观察并记录相关指标,包括:种植体成功率、种植体稳定性、并发症(轻度并发症:术后创口部分裂开、轻度感染、骨折;重度并发症:术后创口完全裂开、骨块坏死、感觉异常)、术后反应等指标,将获得数据导入SPSS17.0进行分析,比较两种术式之间的临床效果差异。结果: 本研究中,骨劈开组种植体成功率88%,Onlay植骨组种植体成功率92%,两组数据差异无统计学意义(p> 0.05)。骨劈开组种植体植入当天ISQ值为62.31± 1.76,Onlay植骨组种植体植入当天ISQ值为75.12± 1.21,数据差异具有统计学意义。种植体植入4个月后,骨劈开组ISQ值为83.28± 2.15,Onlay植骨组ISQ值为82.21± 1.53,数据差异无统计学差异。两组术式轻度并发症(p=0.068)和重度并发症(p=0.214)发生率数据无统计学差异。本文通过视觉评估量表VAS的方式直观的反映出患者术后反应,骨劈开组3.67,Onaly植骨组6.13,差异数据具有统计学意义。两组最终修复后24 个月时,骨劈开组边缘骨吸收为0.97± 0.76mm,Onaly 植骨组边缘骨吸收为0.86± 0.59mm,两组差异无统计学差异(p=0.34)。结论: 在前牙美学区,骨劈开术与Onlay植骨技术均可取得满意临床效果,种植体成功率无明显差异,骨劈开组初期稳定性略低于Onlay植骨组,两组边缘不吸收无明显差异,从并发症发生率及患者术后反应考虑,骨劈开术式是患者更易接受的一种手术方式。

关键词: 口腔种植, 骨劈开, Onlay植骨

Abstract: Objective: To make a retrospective analysis of the clinical aesthetic outcomes between alveolar ridge splitting technique(ARS)and augogenous onlay bone grafting technique(OBG) in the maxillary anteri-or region. Methods: 50 patients for dental implant treatment with either alveolar ridge splitting or augoge-nous onlay bone grafting procedure between January 2013 and January 2015 were included Yantai Stoma-tological Hospita. Of which, 25 patients undergone alveolar ridge splitting surgery with simultenoulsy im-plantation, while 25 patients for augogenous onlay bone grafting surgery received implants 6 months after. Single crown restorations were conducted 4 months after implant surgery. The following-up periods were 24 months, the following parameters were employed for the comparison: implant success rate, implant sta-bility, complications(minor complications: soft tissue fenistration, minor infection, bone fracture, major complications: soft tissue dehiscence, bone necrosis, inordinary sensory), and post operative reactions. SPSS17.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results: The success rates were 88% for alveolar ridge split-ting and 92% for augogenous onlay bone grafting respectively, there was no statistical difference between this two techniques(p>0.05). ISQ value immediately after implantation was 62.31±1.76 for alveolar ridge splitting and 75.12±1.21 for onlay grafting, which demonstrated a statisticaly higher primary stability for the augogenous onlay bone grafting group. 4 months after implant surgery, there was no statistical differ-ence for the ISQ value between this two techniques (83.28±2.15 vs. 82.21±1.53) (p=0.068). There were al-so no differnces for the rates of complications(p=0.214). The VAS evaluation for post-surgery reaction was 3.67 for alveolar ridge splitting and 6.13 for augogenous onlay bone grafting , which demonstrated a higher VAS for the augogenous onlay bone grafting group. Conclusions: Both of the alveolar ridge splitting tech-nique and onlay grafting technique are reliable techniques. The primary stability with augogenous onlay bone grafting is better than ridge splitting technique. There is no significant difference of bone graft bone absorption in the ARS and OBG Groups. Ridge splitting technique is more acceptable for patients consid-ering complications and post operative reactions.

Key words: oral implat, alveolar ridge splitting (ARS), augogenous onlay bone grafting(OBG)

中图分类号: