A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement
A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-04-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
van Wijk, Arjen J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lindeboom, Jerome A.;van Wijk, Arjen J.
背景与传统的皮瓣入路相比，无皮瓣种植手术被认为具有优势。可以最大限度地减少出血，减少手术时间和最小的患者不适。对照研究比较患者的结果变量，以支持这些假设，然而，lacking.AimThe本临床研究的目的是比较患者的结果变量使用flapless和flapped种植体手术technology.Patients和methodsFrom 2008年1月至2008年10月，16个连续的患者无牙上颌骨被列入研究。患者被随机分配至采用非翻瓣手术（8例患者，平均年龄54.6 ± 2.9岁）的种植体放置组或采用传统翻瓣手术（8例患者，平均年龄58.7 ± 7.2岁）的手术组。所有植入物均使用Nobel guide（R）CT引导手术模板放置。结果的措施是荷兰版本的事件量表修订的影响（IES-R），牙科焦虑症使用的s-DAI和口腔健康相关的生活质量（OHIP-14）。所有种植体均以两阶段种植体的形式植入，并采用种植体后种植义齿。在牙科焦虑（s-DAI）、情绪影响（IES-R）、焦虑、手术持续时间或技术难度方面，两组之间没有差异，尽管无翻瓣组的评分始终较高。皮瓣手术组报告的生活质量的影响较小，包括更多的患者谁报告说没有感觉到疼痛在所有在placement.ConclusionsDifferences发现在病人的结果变量确实表明，患者在flapless植入组比患者在flap group.To引用这篇文章：Lindeboom JA，货车Wijk AJ。两种种植技术在患者基础结果测量上的比较：无瓣种植体与传统瓣种植体放置的报告。临床口腔种植。Res. 21，2010; 366-370.doi：10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x.
BackgroundFlapless implant surgery is considered to offer advantages over the traditional flap access approach. There may be minimized bleeding, decreased surgical times and minimal patient discomfort. Controlled studies comparing patient outcome variables to support these assumptions, however, are lacking.AimThe objective of this clinical study was to compare patient outcome variables using flapless and flapped implant surgical techniques.Patients and methodsFrom January 2008 to October 2008, 16 consecutive patients with edentulous maxillas were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to either implant placement with a flapless procedure (eight patients, mean age 54.6 +/- 2.9 years) or surgery with a conventional flap procedure (eight patients, mean age 58.7 +/- 7.2 years). All implants were placed using a Nobel guide (R) CT-guided surgical template. Outcome measures were the Dutch version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), dental anxiety using the s-DAI and oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-14).ResultsNinety-six implants were successfully placed. All implants were placed as two-phase implants and the after-implant placement dentures were adapted. No differences could be shown between conditions on dental anxiety (s-DAI), emotional impact (IES-R), anxiety, procedure duration or technical difficulty, although the flapless group did score consistently higher. The flap procedure group reported less impact on quality of life and included more patients who reported feeling no pain at all during placement.ConclusionsDifferences found in the patient outcome variables do suggest that patients in the flapless implant group had to endure more than patients in the flap group.To cite this article:Lindeboom JA, van Wijk AJ. A comparison of two implant techniques on patient-based outcome measures: a report of flapless vs. conventional flapped implant placement.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 366-370.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01866.x.