Clinical study of modified splitting osteotomy combined with guided bone regeneration applied in severe bone horizontal defect in anterior maxilla

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2019.04.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effect of severe horizontal bone defect in anterior maxilla (the horizontal width ≥ 2 mm and ≤ 4 mm) with modified splitting osteotomy combined with guided bone regeneration guided bone regeneration (GBR) .

Methods

The data being collected is from February 2015 to March 2016 from selected 50 patients, whose horizontal bone widths were within the range of 2 mm and 4 mm, and the vertical bone heights were normal. Using simple randomized sampling, they were divided into the observation group (the number is 25) and the control group (the number is 25) . Observation group was treated with modified splitting osteotomy combined with GBR, while GBR was applied in the control group. Twenty-five implants were implanted in each group 6 months after operations, and superstructure was performed 4 to 6 months after implantation. Follow-up visit was carried on in half a year, when the clinical and imaging examinations were performed. SPSS 21.0 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

The follow-up rate was 100%. During the healing and follow-up periods, none of the implants fell off, and the survival rate was 100%. In observation group, the pink esthetic scores of restoration day was 6.96 ± 0.98, and that of 6 months after restoration was 8.28 ± 1.28. In control group, the PES of restoration day was 7.12 ± 1.13, and that of 6 months after restoration was 8.12 ± 1.30. There was no significant difference between the two groups at restoration day (t = -0.535, P = 0.595) . There was no significant difference between the two groups 6 months after restoration (t = 0.439, P = 0.663) . Horizontal width of observation group was (7.08 ± 0.40) mm, and that of control group was (5.81±0.53) mm. The horizontal width of observation group was larger than that of control group 6 months after operation (t = -9.461, P<0.001) . The mesial marginal bone loss of the observation group was (0.34 ± 0.02) mm, and that of control group was (0.45 ± 0.04) mm. The mesial marginal bone loss of the observation group was lower than that of the control group 6 months after loading (t = -12.86, P<0.001) . The distal marginal bone loss of the observation group was (0.35 ± 0.02) mm, and that of control group was (0.44 ± 0.04) mm. The distal marginal bone loss of the observation group was lower than that of the control group 6 months after loading (t = -10.44, P<0.001) .

Conclusion

The modified splitting osteotomy combining with guided bone regeneration can effectively solve the problem of severe bone defect in anterior maxilla and thus achieve good clinical results.

Key words: Guided tissue regeneration, Dental implants, Osteotomy, Alveolar process, Bone defect

Zhen Zhou, Yamin Wang, Xi Yang, Wenjing Liu, Zhaoqiang Zhang. Clinical study of modified splitting osteotomy combined with guided bone regeneration applied in severe bone horizontal defect in anterior maxilla[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(04): 223-229.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2019.04.006

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I04/223

Figures/Tables 8

References 19

[1]	邱立新，林野，王兴，等.骨劈开技术在上颌前牙种植外科中的应用[J].中国口腔种植学杂志，2000，5(2):67-69. DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1007-3957.2000.02.006.
[2]	Yamada M, Egusa H. Current bone substitutes for implant dentistry[J]. J Prosthodont Res，2018，62(2):152-161. DOI：10.1016/j.jpor.2017.08.010.
[3]	Altiparmak N, Akdeniz SS, Bayram B，et al. Alveolar Ridge Splitting Versus Autogenous Onlay Bone Grafting：Complications and Implant Survival Rates[J]. Implant Dent，2017，26(2):284-287. DOI：10.1097/ID.0000000000000541.
[4]	Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP，et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1：8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，1997，8(3):161-172. DOI：10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x.
[5]	Cochran DL, Buser D, Ten BC，et al. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched（SLA）surface：early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2002，13(2):144-153. DOI：10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x.
[6]	Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T，et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns：the pink esthetic score[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2005，16(6):639-644. DOI：10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x.
[7]	Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC，et al. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2012，23 Suppl 5:1-21. DOI：10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
[8]	Osterne R, Nogueira R, Abreu R T，et al. A retrospective study of an alternative technique for implant repositioning in the maxillary esthetic region[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res，2018，20(6):915-922. DOI：10.1111/cid.12663.
[9]	Teng F, Zhang Q, Wu M，et al. Clinical use of ridge-splitting combined with ridge expansion osteotomy，sandwich bone augmentation，and simultaneous implantation[J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg，2014，52(8):703-708. DOI：10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.03.028.
[10]	Kheur M, Gokhale S, Sumanth S，et al. Staged ridge splitting technique for horizontal expansion in mandible：a case report[J]. J Oral Implantol，2014，40(4):479-483. DOI：10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00068.
[11]	Stricker A, Widmer D, Gueorguiev B，et al. Finite Element Analysis and Biomechanical Testing to Analyze Fracture Displacement of Alveolar Ridge Splitting[J]. Biomed Res Int，2018，2018:3579654. DOI：10.1155/2018/3579654.
[12]	Jung GU, Kim JH, Lim NH，et al. Biomechanical comparison of a novel engine-driven ridge spreader and conventional ridge splitting techniques[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2017，28(6):689-696. DOI：10.1111/clr.12864.
[13]	Mestas G, Alarcón M, Chambrone L. Long-Term Survival Rates of Titanium Implants Placed in Expanded Alveolar Ridges Using Split Crest Procedures：A Systematic Review[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants，2016，31(3):591-599. DOI：10.11607/jomi.4453.
[14]	Wu Q, Yang B, Gao S，et al. Apical U-shape splitting technique for undercut areas of the anterior alveolar ridge：a prospective non-randomized controlled study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg，2019，48(3):388-394. DOI：10.1016/j.ijom.2018.10.004.
[15]	Yao Y, He K, Gong P，et al. U-Shaped Bone Splitting and Osteotome Techniques for Narrow Alveolar Ridge in Implant Surgery[J]. Implant Dent，2018，27(4):507-511. DOI：10.1097/ID.0000000000000795.
[16]	李雪倩，张巧，张晓欣，等. rhBMP-2联合Bio-oss骨粉在前牙美学区种植中的成骨效果[J].口腔疾病防治，2018，26(9):584-591. DOI：10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2018.09.008.
[17]	陈江，周麟.种植体颈部设计的研究现状[J].口腔疾病防治，2016，24(8):441-444. DOI：10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2016.08.001.
[18]	Macedo JP, Pereira J, Vahey BR，et al. Morse taper dental implants and platform switching：The new paradigm in oral implantology[J]. Eur J Dent，2016，10(1):148-154. DOI：10.4103/1305-7456.175677.
[19]	Alves CC, Muñoz F, Cantalapiedra A，et al. Marginal bone and soft tissue behavior following platform switching abutment connection/disconnection--a dog model study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res，2015，26(9):983-991. DOI：10.1111/clr.12385.

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁，±s）	缺牙时间（月，±s）	缺失牙位（例）		缺牙原因（例）
组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁，±s）	缺牙时间（月，±s）	中切牙	侧切牙	龋病	牙周病	外伤
观察组	25	10/15	28.1 ± 4.2	6.0 ± 0.5	14	11	6	15	4
对照组	25	11/14	27.4 ± 5.1	5.6 ± 0.6	16	9	8	14	3

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁，±s）	缺牙时间（月，±s）	缺失牙位（例）		缺牙原因（例）
组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁，±s）	缺牙时间（月，±s）	中切牙	侧切牙	龋病	牙周病	外伤
观察组	25	10/15	28.1 ± 4.2	6.0 ± 0.5	14	11	6	15	4
对照组	25	11/14	27.4 ± 5.1	5.6 ± 0.6	16	9	8	14	3

组别	例数	修复当日	负重6个月
观察组	25	6.96±0.98	8.28±1.28
对照组	25	7.12±1.13	8.12±1.30
t值	?	-0.535	0.439
P值	?	0.595	0.663

组别	例数	修复当日	负重6个月
观察组	25	6.96±0.98	8.28±1.28
对照组	25	7.12±1.13	8.12±1.30
t值	?	-0.535	0.439
P值	?	0.595	0.663

组别	例数	术前	术后6个月
观察组	25	2.88 ± 0.53	7.08 ± 0.40
对照组	25	2.79 ± 0.51	5.81 ± 0.53
t值	?	-0.603	-9.461
P值	?	0.549	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export