首页> 外文期刊>Clinical oral implants research >Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. A comparative study: piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments.
【24h】

Osteotomy and membrane elevation during the maxillary sinus augmentation procedure. A comparative study: piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments.

机译:上颌窦增大手术期间的截骨术和膜抬高。一项比较研究:压电设备与传统旋转设备的对比。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate in a randomized-controlled clinical trial the performance of rotary instruments compared with a piezoelectric device during maxillary sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients who required a bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation were included in this study. A within-patient control study was carried out. The osteotomy for sinus access was performed on one side of the maxilla using the piezosurgery (test sites) and on the other side using conventional rotary diamond burs (control sites). The parameters recorded were as follows: bony window length (L), bony window height (H), bone thickness (T) and osteotomy area (A)--calculated by multiplying L and H. In addition, the time necessary for the osteotomy and sinus membrane elevation as well as the number of surgical complications were calculated. RESULTS: The mean length and height of the bone window were similar in both groups. The osteotomy area (A) obtained by multiplying L and H was wider in the control group (151.2 +/- 20.4 mm(2)) compared with the test group (137 +/- 24.2 mm(2)). The time necessary for the osteotomy and the sinus membrane elevation with conventional instruments was 10.2 +/- 2.4 min, while with the piezoelectric device it was 11.5 +/- 3.8 min. Moreover, membrane perforation occurred in 30% of the maxillary sinuses in the test group and in 23% of the control group. None of the differences observed between the two groups reached a level of significance. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that piezosurgery and conventional instruments did not show any differences in the clinical parameters investigated for the maxillary sinus floor elevation.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是在随机对照临床试验中研究上颌窦底抬高时旋转器械与压电器械相比的性能。材料与方法:本研究包括13例需要双侧上颌窦增大以进行假体修复的患者。进行了一项患者内部对照研究。上颌窦的截骨术使用压电外科手术(测试部位)在上颌骨的一侧进行,而常规旋转金刚石牙钻(对照部位)的另一侧进行截骨术。记录的参数如下:骨窗长度(L),骨窗高度(H),骨厚度(T)和截骨面积(A)-通过将L和H相乘得出。此外,截骨所需的时间计算鼻窦膜抬高以及手术并发症的数量。结果:两组的骨窗平均长度和高度相似。与测试组(137 +/- 24.2 mm(2))相比,对照组(151.2 +/- 20.4 mm(2))通过将L和H相乘得到的截骨面积(A)较宽。使用常规器械进行截骨术和窦膜抬高所需的时间为10.2 +/- 2.4分钟,而使用压电设备则为11.5 +/- 3.8分钟。此外,在测试组中有30%的上颌窦发生膜穿孔,在对照组中有23%发生膜穿孔。两组之间观察到的差异均未达到显着水平。结论:在本研究的范围内,可以得出结论,压电外科手术和常规器械在上颌窦底抬高研究的临床参数方面没有显示任何差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号