Search

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 (P0.05). 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.

Alveolar bone is an important anatomic basis for implant-supported denture restoration, and its different degrees of defects determine the choices of bone augmentation surgeries. Therefore, the reconstruction of alveolar bone defects is an important technology in the clinical practice of implant restoration. However, the final reconstructive effect of bone quality, bone quantity and bone morphology is affected by many factors. Clinicians need to master the standardized diagnosis and treatment principles and methods to improve the treatment effect and achieve the goal of both aesthetic and functional reconstruction of both jaws. Based on the current clinical experience of domestic experts and the relevant academic guidelines of foreign counterparts, this expert consensus systematically and comprehensively summarized the augmentation strategies of alveolar bone defects from two aspects: the classification of alveolar bone defects and the appropriate selection of bone augmentation surgeries. The following consensus are reached: alveolar bone defects can be divided into five types (Ⅰ-0, Ⅰ-Ⅰ, Ⅱ-0, Ⅱ-Ⅰ and Ⅱ-Ⅱ) according to the relationship between alveolar bone defects and the expected position of dental implants. A typeⅠ-0 bone defect is a bone defect on one side of the alveolar bone that does not exceed 50% of the expected implant length, and there is no obvious defect on the other side; guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant implantation is preferred. Type Ⅰ-Ⅰ bone defects refer to bone defects on both sides of alveolar bone those do not exceed 50% of the expected implant length; the first choice is autologous bone block onlay grafting for bone increments with staged implant placement or transcrestal sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant implantation. Type Ⅱ-0 bone defects show that the bone defect on one side of alveolar bone exceeds 50% of the expected implant length, and there’s no obvious defect on the other side; autologous bone block onlay grafting (thickness ≤ 4 mm) or alveolar ridge splitting (thickness > 4 mm) is preferred for bone augmentation with staged implant placement. Type Ⅱ-Ⅰ bone defects indicate that the bone plate defect on one side exceeds 50% of the expected implant length and the bone defect on the other side does not exceed 50% of the expected implant length; autologous bone block onlay grafting or tenting techniques is preferred for bone increments with staged implant implantation. Type Ⅱ-Ⅱ bone defects are bone plates on both sides of alveolar bone those exceed 50% of the expected implant length; guided bone regeneration with rigid mesh or maxillary sinus floor elevation or cortical autologous bone tenting is preferred for bone increments with staged implant implantation. This consensus will provide clinical physicians with appropriate augmentation strategies for alveolar bone defects.

Objective To investigate the short ⁃term efficacy of implant in the treatment of patients with dentition defect caused by chronic periodontitis. Methods 53 patients with mild to moderate chronic periodontitis treated in our hospital from June 2014 to May 2015 were selected as observation group, and 53 patients without periodontal diseases in the same period were selected as control group. The plaque index (PLI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), periodontal probing depth (PD) and gingival papilla index (PIS) were measured at six months and one year after operation, respectively. Interleukin⁃6 (IL⁃6), interleukin⁃8 (IL⁃8), high sensitive C⁃reactive protein (hs⁃CRP) and tumor necrosis factor⁃α (TNF⁃ α) were detected at six months and one year after operation, respectively. At the last follow⁃up, the survival rate of two groups were calculated. Results One year after operation, 5 of the 64 implants in the observation group failed compared with 2 of the 71 implants in the control group. There was no statistical difference in the implant survival rate between the two groups (92.19% vs 97.18%, P＝0.191). There was no significant difference in SBI (t＝0.936, P＝0.351)、PLI (t＝0.457, P＝0.649)、PIS (t＝1.132, P＝0.217)、PD (t＝0.957, P＝0.341) between the two groups at six months after operation. One year after operation, the periodontal index of the observation group was higher than that of the control group SBI (t＝5.297, P＝0.000)、PLI (t＝2.341, P＝0.021)、PIS (t＝8.218, P＝0.000) and PD (t＝6.492, P＝0.000). The levels of IL ⁃ 6 (t＝6.463, P＝0.000)、IL ⁃8 (t＝7.202, P＝0.000)、hs ⁃CRP (t＝4.237, P＝0.000) and TNF ⁃α (t＝ 6.194, P＝0.000) in the observation group were higher than those in the control group at six months after operation. One year after operation, the level of inflammatory factors in the observation group was higher than that in the control group IL⁃6 (t＝12.835, P＝0.000)、IL ⁃8 (t＝13.207, P＝0.000)、hs ⁃CRP (t＝11.319, P＝0.000) and TNF ⁃α (t＝8.117, P＝ 0.000). Conclusion Implant as the treatment of patients with dentition defect caused by chronic periodontitis obtained satisfied short⁃term effect, but its long⁃term efficacy remains to be further verified.