目的探讨伴有牙源性上颌窦炎(odontogenic maxillary sinusitis,OMS)患牙拔除后因骨量不足行上颌窦底提升术及种植修复的临床效果,为临床提供参考。方法本研究已通过单位伦理委员会审查批准,并获得患者知情同意。上颌后牙区患牙无保留...目的探讨伴有牙源性上颌窦炎(odontogenic maxillary sinusitis,OMS)患牙拔除后因骨量不足行上颌窦底提升术及种植修复的临床效果,为临床提供参考。方法本研究已通过单位伦理委员会审查批准,并获得患者知情同意。上颌后牙区患牙无保留价值且确诊为OMS,拔牙后6~8个月骨高度不足行上颌窦底提升术及同期种植45例作为研究组。同期随机纳入上颌后牙区患牙无保留价值但未诊断为OMS,拔牙后6~8个月因种植区域骨高度不足行上颌窦底提升术及同期种植48例作为对照组。研究组中部分上颌窦底骨质不连续及上颌窦底剩余牙槽骨高度<4 mm的病例行侧壁开窗上颌窦底提升术共13例,其余32例行穿嵴顶上颌窦底提升术。对照组上颌窦底剩余牙槽骨高度<4 mm的病例行侧壁开窗上颌窦底提升术共8例,其余40例行穿嵴顶上颌窦底提升术。种植术后6~8个月行二期修复治疗。种植术后21 d、3个月、8个月及修复后每6个月进行随访,修复后24个月比较2组上颌窦内成骨高度(sinus bone gain,SBG)、种植体尖端成骨高度(apical bone height,ABH)和种植体边缘骨吸收(marginal bone loss,MBL)情况。结果研究组45例种植术前上颌窦黏膜厚度均值(1.556±0.693)mm,大于对照组(1.229±0.425)mm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),但上颌窦底提升术均无上颌窦黏膜穿孔。修复后24个月,研究组SBG、ABH和MBL与对照组差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论伴OMS的患牙拔除后,上颌窦炎症减退、缺牙区骨质高度和密度得到一定程度的恢复,通过上颌窦底提升手术及种植修复,可以达到与非OMS患牙拔除后上颌窦底提升术及种植修复同样的效果。展开更多
BACKGROUND Novel strategies are needed for improving guided bone regeneration(GBR) in oral surgery prior to implant placement, particularly in maxillary sinus augmentation(GBR-MSA) and in lateral alveolar ridge augmen...BACKGROUND Novel strategies are needed for improving guided bone regeneration(GBR) in oral surgery prior to implant placement, particularly in maxillary sinus augmentation(GBR-MSA) and in lateral alveolar ridge augmentation(LRA). This study tested the hypothesis that the combination of freshly isolated, unmodified autologous adipose-derived regenerative cells(UA-ADRCs), fraction 2 of plasma rich in growth factors(PRGF-2) and an osteoinductive scaffold(OIS)(UAADRC/PRGF-2/OIS) is superior to the combination of PRGF-2 and the same OIS alone(PRGF-2/OIS) in GBR-MSA/LRA.CASE SUMMARY A 79-year-old patient was treated with a bilateral external sinus lift procedure as well as a bilateral lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. GBR-MSA/LRA was performed with UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS on the right side, and with PRGF-2/OIS on the left side. Biopsies were collected at 6 wk and 34 wk after GBRMSA/LRA. At the latter time point implants were placed. Radiographs(32 mo follow-up time) demonstrated excellent bone healing. No radiological or histological signs of inflammation were observed. Detailed histologic,histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analysis of the biopsies evidenced that UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS resulted in better and faster bone regeneration than PRGF-2/OIS.CONCLUSION GBR-MSA with UA-ADRCs, PRGF-2, and an OIS shows effectiveness without adverse effects.展开更多
文摘目的探讨伴有牙源性上颌窦炎(odontogenic maxillary sinusitis,OMS)患牙拔除后因骨量不足行上颌窦底提升术及种植修复的临床效果,为临床提供参考。方法本研究已通过单位伦理委员会审查批准,并获得患者知情同意。上颌后牙区患牙无保留价值且确诊为OMS,拔牙后6~8个月骨高度不足行上颌窦底提升术及同期种植45例作为研究组。同期随机纳入上颌后牙区患牙无保留价值但未诊断为OMS,拔牙后6~8个月因种植区域骨高度不足行上颌窦底提升术及同期种植48例作为对照组。研究组中部分上颌窦底骨质不连续及上颌窦底剩余牙槽骨高度<4 mm的病例行侧壁开窗上颌窦底提升术共13例,其余32例行穿嵴顶上颌窦底提升术。对照组上颌窦底剩余牙槽骨高度<4 mm的病例行侧壁开窗上颌窦底提升术共8例,其余40例行穿嵴顶上颌窦底提升术。种植术后6~8个月行二期修复治疗。种植术后21 d、3个月、8个月及修复后每6个月进行随访,修复后24个月比较2组上颌窦内成骨高度(sinus bone gain,SBG)、种植体尖端成骨高度(apical bone height,ABH)和种植体边缘骨吸收(marginal bone loss,MBL)情况。结果研究组45例种植术前上颌窦黏膜厚度均值(1.556±0.693)mm,大于对照组(1.229±0.425)mm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),但上颌窦底提升术均无上颌窦黏膜穿孔。修复后24个月,研究组SBG、ABH和MBL与对照组差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论伴OMS的患牙拔除后,上颌窦炎症减退、缺牙区骨质高度和密度得到一定程度的恢复,通过上颌窦底提升手术及种植修复,可以达到与非OMS患牙拔除后上颌窦底提升术及种植修复同样的效果。
文摘BACKGROUND Novel strategies are needed for improving guided bone regeneration(GBR) in oral surgery prior to implant placement, particularly in maxillary sinus augmentation(GBR-MSA) and in lateral alveolar ridge augmentation(LRA). This study tested the hypothesis that the combination of freshly isolated, unmodified autologous adipose-derived regenerative cells(UA-ADRCs), fraction 2 of plasma rich in growth factors(PRGF-2) and an osteoinductive scaffold(OIS)(UAADRC/PRGF-2/OIS) is superior to the combination of PRGF-2 and the same OIS alone(PRGF-2/OIS) in GBR-MSA/LRA.CASE SUMMARY A 79-year-old patient was treated with a bilateral external sinus lift procedure as well as a bilateral lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. GBR-MSA/LRA was performed with UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS on the right side, and with PRGF-2/OIS on the left side. Biopsies were collected at 6 wk and 34 wk after GBRMSA/LRA. At the latter time point implants were placed. Radiographs(32 mo follow-up time) demonstrated excellent bone healing. No radiological or histological signs of inflammation were observed. Detailed histologic,histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analysis of the biopsies evidenced that UA-ADRC/PRGF-2/OIS resulted in better and faster bone regeneration than PRGF-2/OIS.CONCLUSION GBR-MSA with UA-ADRCs, PRGF-2, and an OIS shows effectiveness without adverse effects.