RESUMEN
Objective@#To investigate the clinical effects of sinus elevation surgery and implant restorationdue to insufficient bone massafter tooth extraction in patients with odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OMS) and to provide a reference for use in clinical practice.@*Methods@#This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee, and informed consent was obtained from the patients. Forty-five teeth were extracted from patients with OMS in the maxillary posterior area (the study group). Sinus elevation and implantation were performed due to insufficient bone height in the implant area 6-8 months after tooth extraction in the study group. Forty-eight teeth were extracted from patients without "OMS" in the maxillary posterior area (the control group), and sinus elevation and implantation were performed due to insufficient bone height in the implant area 6-8 months after tooth extraction inthe control group. In the study group, 13 cases of discontinuous maxillary sinus floor bone and residual alveolar bone height of the maxillary sinus floor less than 4 mm were addressed with lateral wall sinus elevation, and the other 32 cases were addressed with crest-approach sinus elevation. In the control group, 8 cases of residual alveolar bone height less than 4 mm in the maxillary sinus floor were addressed with lateral wall sinus,and the other 40 cases were addressed with crest approach sinus elevation. Restorations were placed 6 to 8 months after surgery. The patients were followed up 21 days, 3 months, and 8 months after implantation and every 6 months after the placement of the restorations. The sinus bone gain (SBG), apical bone height (ABL) and marginal bone loss (MBL) were statistically analyzed 24 months after the restoration.@*Results@#The average preoperative mucosal thickness in the 45 patients in the study group was (1.556 ± 0.693) mm, which was significantly larger than that in the control group (1.229 ± 0.425) mm (P<0.001). There were no perforations in either group. Twenty-four months after restoration, there was no significant difference in the SBG, ABH or MBL between the two groups (P>0.05).@*Conclusion@#After the extraction of teeth from patients with OMS, the inflammation of the maxillary sinus decreased, and the bone height and density in the edentulous area were restored to a certain degree. The effects of sinus floor lifting surgery and implant restoration do not differ between patients with and without OMS.
RESUMEN
Objective@#Conebeam CT (CBCT) was used to measure the palatine between the maxillary first and second molars. The proximal and distal palatal widths of the maxillary first and second molar and the palatal mucosal thickness and bone tissue thickness when microscrew implant anchorage nail were implanted at different angles provided a reference for the clinical selection of microscrew implant placement.@* Methods@#The image data of 90 adult patients were selected as the research object, and the jaw bone was reconstructed by scanning. In maxillary palatine, selection of distances at 12 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm, and 18 mm from the palatal apex of maxillary first molar between the maxillary first and second molar were used as measurement, measured the proximal and distal palatal widths of maxillary first and second molar and the palatal mucosal thickness and bone tissue thickness when microscrew implant anchorage nails were implanted at 30 °, 45 °, 60 °, and 90 °. SPSS 26.0 software was used for one-way ANOVA and LSD pair comparison. @*Results@#The larger the angle of the microscrew implant anchorage nail was, the smaller the proximal and distal medial widths between the maxillary first and second molar, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with the 90° direction, the proximal and distal medial widths of the microscrew implant anchorage nail were larger in the 60° direction. The greater the angle of implantation, the smaller the mucosal thickness and the greater the bone tissue thickness, and the results showed a significant difference (P < 0.001). Compared with the direction of 30° and 45°, the mucosal thickness at the direction of 60° was smaller, and the bone tissue thickness was larger. The higher the position of the microscrew implant anchorage nail, the greater the width of the proximal and distal medial, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with the positions 12 and 14 mm from the palatal tip, the proximal and distal medial widths of the microscrew implant anchorage nail were larger. The higher the implant position was, the greater the mucosal thickness and the smaller the bone tissue thickness. The results showed a significant difference (P < 0.001). Compared with the position of 18 mm from the palatal tip of the maxillary first molar, the mucosal thickness was smaller and the bone tissue thickness was larger.@*Conclusion@#It is most appropriate to implant microscrew implant anchorage nail at least 10 mm in length in the direction of 60° at the palatal apex 16 mm from the maxillary first molar in palatine between the first and second molar.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To assess the long-term stability of gingival grafts placed around dental implants at the time of second surgery uncovering and to further investigate the association between mucosal thickness (MTh) by demographic variables and clinical investigation. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients with submerged dental implants covered by inadequate keratinized mucosa were studied. The subjects underwent a periimplant plastic surgery (PPS) at the second-stage dental implant surgery and free gingival autograft orsubepithelial connective tissue graft were used according to the patients' clinical situation. Clinical measurement of MTh was assessed by bone sounding with a periodontal probe using customized acrylic stents andthe values were recorded at baseline (day of graft) and at 0.5, 1.5, 4, 12, 24 and 36 months after grafting. Results: At 12 months postoperatively, the mean MTh was 2.89 mm, with a mean additional increase of 1.75 mm when compared with baseline (P=0.0001). No statistically significant differences in MTh were found between the 12- and the 36-month observations (P=0.09). In addition, at 36 months, a thin mucosa was associated with a greater increase in the MTh compared with a thick mucosa (2.14 and 0.64 mm, respectively, P=0.006). Similarly, the mandibular sites were associated with a greater increase in the MTh in comparison with the maxillary sites (2.17 and 0.81 mm, respectively; P=0.02). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this investigation, the data suggest that PPS at the second-stage dental implant surgery could results in additional increases in MTh, especially when it is performed in areas where the mucosa is of a thin biotype.