[Comparison of clinical efficacy between autologous block bone graft and GBR in horizontal bone augmentation based on Mimics 3D reconstruction].

Q4 Medicine 上海口腔医学 Pub Date : 2024-10-01
Xiu-Quan He, Yu-Shan Li, Yu-Hao Shui, Kun Liu
{"title":"[Comparison of clinical efficacy between autologous block bone graft and GBR in horizontal bone augmentation based on Mimics 3D reconstruction].","authors":"Xiu-Quan He, Yu-Shan Li, Yu-Hao Shui, Kun Liu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical efficacy of autologous bone block graft and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in horizontal bone augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 42 patients were included and divided into two groups. Group A included 20 patients, in whom autologous bone block graft was performed. Group B included 22 patients, in whom GBR was conducted. The incidence of complications, pain degree, secondary bone graft rate, bone width increment, bone resorption rate, marginal bone resorption and implant success rate after 1 year of restoration were recorded and evaluated. SPSS 26.0 soft ware package was used for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in implant success rate, incidence of complications and the rate of secondary bone grafting between the two groups. The pain degree in group A was significantly higher than that in group B(P<0.05). The increment of bone width at 2 mm below the crest in group A was more than that in group B(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in increment of bone width between 6 mm and 10 mm below the crest. The absorption rate of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 2 mm below the crest(P<0.05), while the difference was not statistically significant at 6 mm and 10 mm below the crest. There was no significant difference in marginal bone resorption between the two groups 1 year after restoration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For horizontal bone defects, autologous bone block graft has a better bone contour at the crest than GBR. The amount of marginal bone resorption in two groups is similar after 1 year of restoration.</p>","PeriodicalId":21709,"journal":{"name":"上海口腔医学","volume":"33 5","pages":"486-491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"上海口腔医学","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy of autologous bone block graft and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in horizontal bone augmentation.

Methods: A total of 42 patients were included and divided into two groups. Group A included 20 patients, in whom autologous bone block graft was performed. Group B included 22 patients, in whom GBR was conducted. The incidence of complications, pain degree, secondary bone graft rate, bone width increment, bone resorption rate, marginal bone resorption and implant success rate after 1 year of restoration were recorded and evaluated. SPSS 26.0 soft ware package was used for data analysis.

Results: There was no significant difference in implant success rate, incidence of complications and the rate of secondary bone grafting between the two groups. The pain degree in group A was significantly higher than that in group B(P<0.05). The increment of bone width at 2 mm below the crest in group A was more than that in group B(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in increment of bone width between 6 mm and 10 mm below the crest. The absorption rate of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 2 mm below the crest(P<0.05), while the difference was not statistically significant at 6 mm and 10 mm below the crest. There was no significant difference in marginal bone resorption between the two groups 1 year after restoration.

Conclusions: For horizontal bone defects, autologous bone block graft has a better bone contour at the crest than GBR. The amount of marginal bone resorption in two groups is similar after 1 year of restoration.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[基于Mimics三维重建的自体块骨移植与GBR水平骨增强的临床疗效比较]。
目的:比较自体骨块移植与引导骨再生(GBR)在水平骨增强术中的临床疗效。方法:将42例患者分为两组。A组20例,行自体骨块移植。B组22例,行GBR。记录修复1年后并发症发生率、疼痛程度、二次植骨率、骨宽度增量、骨吸收率、边缘骨吸收率、种植体成功率。采用SPSS 26.0软件包进行数据分析。结果:两组患者种植体成功率、并发症发生率及二次植骨率均无显著差异。A组疼痛程度显著高于B组(P<0.05)。A组骨嵴下2 mm处骨宽增量大于B组(P<0.05)。在冠下6 mm和10 mm之间,骨宽度增量无显著差异。A组在峰下2 mm处吸收率显著低于B组(P<0.05),而在峰下6 mm和10 mm处差异无统计学意义。两组修复后1年边缘骨吸收差异无统计学意义。结论:对于水平骨缺损,自体骨块移植比GBR具有更好的嵴骨轮廓。两组修复1年后边缘骨吸收量相近。
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
上海口腔医学
上海口腔医学 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5299
期刊介绍: "Shanghai Journal of Stomatology (SJS)" is a comprehensive academic journal of stomatology directed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and sponsored by the Ninth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. The main columns include basic research, clinical research, column articles, clinical summaries, reviews, academic lectures, etc., which are suitable for reference by clinicians, scientific researchers and teaching personnel at all levels engaged in oral medicine.
期刊最新文献
[Expression and clinical significance of USP20 in oral squamous cell carcinoma]. [Metabolites differences between plaque biofilms of children with different levels of dental caries]. [Safety of closed traction appliance in the treatment of impacted anterior teeth and its effect on pulp blood flow and masticatory function]. [Analysis of root development of maxillary inverted impacted central incisor before and after orthodontic traction by CBCT]. [Analysis of temporomandibular joint imaging and orthodontic effect in patients with introverted deep overbite and severe attrition].
×
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