Mena T Elsaieed, Fouad A El-Belasy, Shaimaa A Ibraheim, Ayman A Yaseen, Mohamed Z Amer
{"title":"在萎缩的下颌骨后部使用压电手术的不同分期劈脊技术相关的种植体稳定性和边缘骨变化:一项比较研究。","authors":"Mena T Elsaieed, Fouad A El-Belasy, Shaimaa A Ibraheim, Ayman A Yaseen, Mohamed Z Amer","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The ridge-splitting technique is considered one of the common solutions for horizontal ridge augmentation. The study evaluated implant stability and marginal bone loss after two vs three staged ridge-splitting technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twelve dental implants were inserted into 10 patients through staged ridge-splitting approach. In group I, six dental implants were inserted through a full mucoperiosteal flap reflection and bony incision. After 3 weeks, a closed buccal plate expansion and grafting were done, with sequential implant insertion 3 months later. While in group II, six dental implants were inserted through the same procedure as the first stage. Then bone expansion, grafting, and implant insertion were made at the second stage. All implants were loaded after 3 months and assessed clinically regarding implant stability and radiographically through marginal bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-way ANOVA test was used. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values showing highly significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.003) were recorded at implant placement. In contrast, no statistically significant differences were recorded among the studied groups at the other assessment time intervals (<i>p</i> = 0.219, 0.366, and 0.394, respectively). Meanwhile, group II reported lower marginal bone loss values than group I with a highly significant difference between both groups over all assessment time intervals (<i>p</i> = 0.001, 0.008, and 0.002, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Two staged ridge-splitting technique offered a shorter treatment time with lower marginal bone loss and comparable implant stability.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Two-staged ridge-splitting technique provided less patients' recall visits with a less surgical intervention than the three-staged technique. This may be prospectively reflected in further research for its clinical merits. How to cite this article: Elsaieed MT, El-belasy FA, Ibraheim SA, et al. Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Changes Associated with Different Staged Ridge-splitting Techniques Using Piezoelectric Surgery in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):661-668.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 7","pages":"661-668"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Changes Associated with Different Staged Ridge-splitting Techniques Using Piezoelectric Surgery in Atrophic Posterior Mandible:A Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mena T Elsaieed, Fouad A El-Belasy, Shaimaa A Ibraheim, Ayman A Yaseen, Mohamed Z Amer\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The ridge-splitting technique is considered one of the common solutions for horizontal ridge augmentation. The study evaluated implant stability and marginal bone loss after two vs three staged ridge-splitting technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twelve dental implants were inserted into 10 patients through staged ridge-splitting approach. In group I, six dental implants were inserted through a full mucoperiosteal flap reflection and bony incision. After 3 weeks, a closed buccal plate expansion and grafting were done, with sequential implant insertion 3 months later. While in group II, six dental implants were inserted through the same procedure as the first stage. Then bone expansion, grafting, and implant insertion were made at the second stage. All implants were loaded after 3 months and assessed clinically regarding implant stability and radiographically through marginal bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-way ANOVA test was used. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values showing highly significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.003) were recorded at implant placement. In contrast, no statistically significant differences were recorded among the studied groups at the other assessment time intervals (<i>p</i> = 0.219, 0.366, and 0.394, respectively). Meanwhile, group II reported lower marginal bone loss values than group I with a highly significant difference between both groups over all assessment time intervals (<i>p</i> = 0.001, 0.008, and 0.002, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Two staged ridge-splitting technique offered a shorter treatment time with lower marginal bone loss and comparable implant stability.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Two-staged ridge-splitting technique provided less patients' recall visits with a less surgical intervention than the three-staged technique. This may be prospectively reflected in further research for its clinical merits. How to cite this article: Elsaieed MT, El-belasy FA, Ibraheim SA, et al. Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Changes Associated with Different Staged Ridge-splitting Techniques Using Piezoelectric Surgery in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):661-668.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":\"25 7\",\"pages\":\"661-668\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:分嵴技术被认为是水平嵴增量的常见解决方案之一。该研究评估了两阶段牙脊分离技术与三阶段牙脊分离技术后种植体的稳定性和边缘骨质流失情况:10 名患者通过分期分脊法植入了 12 个种植体。在第一组中,通过全粘骨膜瓣反射和骨切口植入六颗种植体。3 周后,进行封闭式颊板扩张和移植,3 个月后依次植入种植体。第二组则采用与第一阶段相同的程序植入六颗种植体。然后在第二阶段进行骨扩张、移植和种植体植入。所有种植体均在 3 个月后植入,并通过临床评估种植体的稳定性,以及通过边缘骨质流失进行影像学评估:结果:采用单因素方差分析。种植体植入时的种植体稳定性商数(ISQ)值显示出非常显著的差异(p = 0.003)。相比之下,在其他评估时间间隔内,研究组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异(p = 0.219、0.366 和 0.394)。同时,II 组的边缘骨损失值低于 I 组,两组在所有评估时间间隔内的差异都非常显著(分别为 p = 0.001、0.008 和 0.002):临床意义:临床意义:与三阶段分脊技术相比,两阶段分脊技术减少了患者的复诊次数,减少了手术干预。临床意义:与三阶段技术相比,两阶段牙槽嵴分离技术减少了患者的复诊次数,减少了手术干预,其临床优点可在进一步的研究中得到体现。如何引用本文:Elsaieed MT, El-belasy FA, Ibraheim SA, et al:比较研究。J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):661-668.
Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Changes Associated with Different Staged Ridge-splitting Techniques Using Piezoelectric Surgery in Atrophic Posterior Mandible:A Comparative Study.
Aim: The ridge-splitting technique is considered one of the common solutions for horizontal ridge augmentation. The study evaluated implant stability and marginal bone loss after two vs three staged ridge-splitting technique.
Materials and methods: Twelve dental implants were inserted into 10 patients through staged ridge-splitting approach. In group I, six dental implants were inserted through a full mucoperiosteal flap reflection and bony incision. After 3 weeks, a closed buccal plate expansion and grafting were done, with sequential implant insertion 3 months later. While in group II, six dental implants were inserted through the same procedure as the first stage. Then bone expansion, grafting, and implant insertion were made at the second stage. All implants were loaded after 3 months and assessed clinically regarding implant stability and radiographically through marginal bone loss.
Results: One-way ANOVA test was used. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values showing highly significant difference (p = 0.003) were recorded at implant placement. In contrast, no statistically significant differences were recorded among the studied groups at the other assessment time intervals (p = 0.219, 0.366, and 0.394, respectively). Meanwhile, group II reported lower marginal bone loss values than group I with a highly significant difference between both groups over all assessment time intervals (p = 0.001, 0.008, and 0.002, respectively).
Conclusion: Two staged ridge-splitting technique offered a shorter treatment time with lower marginal bone loss and comparable implant stability.
Clinical significance: Two-staged ridge-splitting technique provided less patients' recall visits with a less surgical intervention than the three-staged technique. This may be prospectively reflected in further research for its clinical merits. How to cite this article: Elsaieed MT, El-belasy FA, Ibraheim SA, et al. Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Changes Associated with Different Staged Ridge-splitting Techniques Using Piezoelectric Surgery in Atrophic Posterior Mandible: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):661-668.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.