Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans
Autogenous onlay bone grafts vs. alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a 2-4-year prospective study on humans
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01351.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-08-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Rimondini, Lia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chiapasco, Matteo;Zaniboni, Marco;Rimondini, Lia
目的：本研究的目的是比较：（a）自体骨移植（ABG）和牵张成骨（DO）在矫正下颌骨垂直缺损方面的能力，以及在种植体植入前后随时间推移保持垂直骨增量的能力;（B）植入重建或牵张区域的种植体的存活率和成功率。材料和方法：在2年的时间（2001-2002），17例患者提出垂直萎缩的部分无牙下颌骨需要种植体支持的修复，包括在这项研究中。患者随机分为两组。8例患者（第1组）采用从下颌升支采集的ABG进行治疗，而9例患者（第2组）采用DO进行治疗。在第1组中，患者在重建手术后4-5个月接受植入物，而在第2组中，植入物在牵引装置取出时放置（完成牵引后约3个月）。第1组共植入19个骨内种植体，第2组共植入21个种植体。两组患者在3-5个月后开始修复。结果：第1组患者种植体植入前骨吸收明显高于第2组（P=0.01），而就种植体的存活率和成功率以及假体加载开始后种植体周围骨吸收而言，两组之间无统计学显著性差异。结果表明：（a）两种技术都可以有效地改善垂直吸收的无牙槽嵴的缺陷;（B）种植体放置在重建/牵引区的存活率和成功率与放置在天然骨中的种植体一致。
Objectives: The purposes of this study were to compare: (a) autogenous bone grafts (ABG) and distraction osteogenesis (DO) for their ability in correcting vertically deficient mandibular ridges and their capability in maintaining over time the vertical bone gain obtained before and after implant placement; and (b) the survival and success rates of implants placed in the reconstructed or distracted areas.Material and methods: In a 2-year period (2001-2002), 17 patients presenting with vertically atrophied partially edentulous mandibles requiring implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation, were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Eight patients (group 1) were treated with ABG harvested from the mandibular ramus, while nine patients (group 2) were treated by means of DO. In group 1, patients received implants 4-5 months after the reconstructive procedure, while in group 2 implants were placed at the time of distraction device removal (approximately 3 months after the completion of distraction). A total of 19 endosseous implants were placed in group 1, and 21 implants were placed in group 2 patients. For both groups, after an additional 3-5-month period, prosthetic rehabilitation was started.Results: Bone resorption before implant placement was significantly higher in group 1 (P=0.01), while no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups as far as survival and success rates of implants and peri-implant bone resorption after the start of prosthetic loading were concerned.Conclusion: The results suggested that: (a) both techniques may effectively improve the deficit of vertically resorbed edentulous ridges; (b) survival and success rates of implants placed in the reconstructed/distracted areas are consistent with those of implants placed in native bone.