Comparison of Short-term Outcomes Between Schneiderian Membrane Perforation and Non-perforation Patients after Simultaneous External Elevation and Implantation.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Oral health & preventive dentistry Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.3290/j.ohpd.b5638110
Jichao Lin, Qianrong Zhou, Yanjun Lin, Wei Bi, Youcheng Yu, Qinglian Wang
{"title":"Comparison of Short-term Outcomes Between Schneiderian Membrane Perforation and Non-perforation Patients after Simultaneous External Elevation and Implantation.","authors":"Jichao Lin, Qianrong Zhou, Yanjun Lin, Wei Bi, Youcheng Yu, Qinglian Wang","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.b5638110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare short-term outcomes between membrane perforation and non-perforation patients after simultaneous external elevation with implantation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this retrospective observational study, 60 maxillary posterior tooth-loss patients with an insufficient amount of residual bone for direct implantation were enrolled. All patients underwent simultaneous external elevation and implantation, and were divided into perforation and non-perforation groups according to the postoperative Schneiderian membrane status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 60 patients, 30 cases (35 implants) were assigned to the membrane perforation group, and 30 (44 implants) were allocated to the non-perforation group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline data (p>0.05). In the perforation group, the mean vertical bone gain (VBG) at 6 and 12 months was 6.02±2.14 mm and 5.37±2.22 mm, resp., compared to 6.78±2.59 mm and 6.42±2.64 mm in the non-perforation group, resp. (both p>0.05). Preoperative median Schneiderian membrane thickness (SMT) in the perforation group was 0.77 mm, which was statistically significantly thinner than the 1.24 mm measure in the non-perforation group (p< 0.05); however, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups at 12 months postoperatively (0.80 mm vs 1.25 mm, p>0.05). The marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant restoration in the perforation and non-perforation groups was 0.16±0.10 mm and 0.22±0.12 mm, resp. During postoperative follow-up, the implant survival rate was 100% in the two groups. The incidence of postoperative nasal bleeding in the perforation group was statistically significantly higher compared with that in the non-perforation group (50% vs 16.7%, p<0.05), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of facial swelling, intraoral bleeding, wound dehiscence and acute/chronic sinusitis between the two groups (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Schneiderian membrane perforation after simultaneous external elevation and implantation do not adversely affect short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b5638110","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

Abstract

Purpose: To compare short-term outcomes between membrane perforation and non-perforation patients after simultaneous external elevation with implantation.

Materials and methods: In this retrospective observational study, 60 maxillary posterior tooth-loss patients with an insufficient amount of residual bone for direct implantation were enrolled. All patients underwent simultaneous external elevation and implantation, and were divided into perforation and non-perforation groups according to the postoperative Schneiderian membrane status.

Results: Of the 60 patients, 30 cases (35 implants) were assigned to the membrane perforation group, and 30 (44 implants) were allocated to the non-perforation group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline data (p>0.05). In the perforation group, the mean vertical bone gain (VBG) at 6 and 12 months was 6.02±2.14 mm and 5.37±2.22 mm, resp., compared to 6.78±2.59 mm and 6.42±2.64 mm in the non-perforation group, resp. (both p>0.05). Preoperative median Schneiderian membrane thickness (SMT) in the perforation group was 0.77 mm, which was statistically significantly thinner than the 1.24 mm measure in the non-perforation group (p< 0.05); however, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups at 12 months postoperatively (0.80 mm vs 1.25 mm, p>0.05). The marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant restoration in the perforation and non-perforation groups was 0.16±0.10 mm and 0.22±0.12 mm, resp. During postoperative follow-up, the implant survival rate was 100% in the two groups. The incidence of postoperative nasal bleeding in the perforation group was statistically significantly higher compared with that in the non-perforation group (50% vs 16.7%, p<0.05), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of facial swelling, intraoral bleeding, wound dehiscence and acute/chronic sinusitis between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusions: Schneiderian membrane perforation after simultaneous external elevation and implantation do not adversely affect short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
施奈德膜穿孔与非穿孔患者同时接受体外提升和植入手术后的短期疗效比较
目的:比较牙膜穿孔和未穿孔患者同时进行外部提升和种植后的短期疗效:在这项回顾性观察研究中,共纳入了 60 名上颌后牙缺失患者,他们的残余牙槽骨量不足以直接进行种植。根据术后施奈德膜的状态,将所有患者分为穿孔组和非穿孔组:60例患者中,30例(35个植入物)被分配到膜穿孔组,30例(44个植入物)被分配到未穿孔组。基线数据差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。穿孔组 6 个月和 12 个月时的平均垂直骨增量(VBG)分别为 6.02±2.14 mm 和 5.37±2.22 mm,而未穿孔组分别为 6.78±2.59 mm 和 6.42±2.64 mm(均 p>0.05)。穿孔组的术前中位施奈德膜厚度(SMT)为 0.77 mm,与未穿孔组的 1.24 mm 相比,在统计学上有显著差异(P< 0.05);但术后 12 个月时,两组间的差异在统计学上无显著性(0.80 mm vs 1.25 mm,P>0.05)。种植体修复 1 年后,穿孔组和非穿孔组的边缘骨损失分别为(0.16±0.10)毫米和(0.22±0.12)毫米。穿孔组术后鼻出血的发生率(50% vs 16.7%,P0.05)明显高于未穿孔组,差异有统计学意义:结论:施奈德膜穿孔在同时进行外部提升和植入后不会对短期临床和影像学结果产生不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Oral health & preventive dentistry
Oral health & preventive dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.
期刊最新文献
Self-monitoring of Oral Health Using Smartphone Selfie Powered by Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Preventive Dentistry. Does Non-surgical Periodontal Therapy With Adjunct Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Help Reduce Periodontal Inflammation and Haemoglobin A1c Levels in Patients With Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Effect of Active Oxygen Fluid (Blue®m) as a Root Canal Irrigant Against Enterococcus Faecalis. Evaluation of Colour Changes in Nanocomposite-Based Bulk-Fill and Universal Composite Using Different Polishing Systems. The Mechanisms and Application Value of Postbiotics in Caries Prevention and Management.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1