To provide an anatomical basis for clinical implant esthetics,we evaluated the morphology of the nasopalatine canal（NPC） and analyzed labial and interproximal bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region.We sought ...To provide an anatomical basis for clinical implant esthetics,we evaluated the morphology of the nasopalatine canal（NPC） and analyzed labial and interproximal bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region.We sought to investigate the effect of maxillary protrusion and tooth labiolingual inclination on labial bone anatomy in Chinese adults.Three dimensional（3D） images were reconstructed using cone-beam computed tomography（CBCT） images from 80 Chinese subjects and by SimPlant 11.04.The dimensions of the NPC,the thickness and profile of the labial bone,the width and height of the interproximal bone,angle sella-nasion-subspinale（SNA） and angle upper central incisor-nasion,subspinale（U1-NA） were measured.The incisive foramen of the NPC was markedly wider than its nasal foramen.The dimension of its labial bone wall demonstrated an increasing width from the crestal to apical measurements.The labial bone at the maxillary anterior region was rather thin,especially at 3 mm below the cemento-enamel junction（CEJ） and the mid-root level;the profile of the labial bone was more curved at the central incisor,and the interproximal bone became wider and shorter posteriorly.There were significant relationships between maxillary protrusion and labial bone profile,tooth labiolingual inclination and labial bone thickness（P 〈 0.02）.To achieve optimal esthetic outcome of implant,bone augmentation is necessary at the maxillary anterior region.For immediate or early placement at the maxillary anterior region,the implant should be located palatally to reduce labial bone resorption and marginal recession;its apex should be angulated palatally to avoid labial perforation at the apical region.To protect the NPC,implants at the central incisor region should be placed away from NPC.展开更多
目的:目前临床上关于上颌窦提升的同时是否使用植骨材料的观点尚未达成共识,仍存在争议。为此,文章对穿牙槽嵴顶上颌窦底提升术并同期植入种植体,使用和不使用骨移植材料的临床疗效进行对比分析。方法:通过计算机检索中国知网、万方、...目的:目前临床上关于上颌窦提升的同时是否使用植骨材料的观点尚未达成共识,仍存在争议。为此,文章对穿牙槽嵴顶上颌窦底提升术并同期植入种植体,使用和不使用骨移植材料的临床疗效进行对比分析。方法:通过计算机检索中国知网、万方、维普、CBM、EMbase、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆数据库中所有公开发表的国内外有关穿牙槽嵴顶上颌窦提升术后与使用骨移植材料有关的临床研究。最终由2位评价员按照Cochrane手册和NOS量表进行文献质量评价后,应用RevMan 5.3软件及Stata 15.1软件对最终符合纳入标准的研究数据进行Meta分析。结果:①最终共纳入11篇文献,有6篇为随机对照试验,剩余5篇为前瞻性队列研究,共包括994枚种植体,其中植骨组399枚,不植骨组595枚;②Meta分析结果显示:上颌窦内提升术同期植入种植体使用与不使用骨移植材料两者的术后种植体失败率(RR=0.57,95%CI:0.28-1.18,P=0.13)及种植体周围骨吸收量(SMD=0.03,95%CI:-0.23-0.29,P=0.80)差异均无显著性意义;不植骨组黏膜穿孔风险要低于植骨组(RR=0.33,95%CI:0.12-0.96,P=0.04);但是不植骨组日后上颌窦内新骨形成量明显低于植骨组(SMD=-0.89,95%CI:-1.08至-0.70,P<0.05)。结论:上颌窦内提升同期植入种植体植骨与不植骨均可以获得可预期效果,两组在种植体失败率、种植体周围骨吸收量方面两组无显著差异,植骨组可以获得更多的新骨量,但是植骨组黏膜穿孔率高于不植骨组。因此临床中选择上颌窦内提升同期植入种植体不使用骨移植材料具有更多优点,且安全性较高。但由于文章纳入的研究质量限制,尚有许多不足之处,期待未来能有更多具有高质量水平的随机对照试验,在多中心、大样本的分析下得出更可靠的结论。展开更多
文摘To provide an anatomical basis for clinical implant esthetics,we evaluated the morphology of the nasopalatine canal（NPC） and analyzed labial and interproximal bone anatomy at the maxillary anterior region.We sought to investigate the effect of maxillary protrusion and tooth labiolingual inclination on labial bone anatomy in Chinese adults.Three dimensional（3D） images were reconstructed using cone-beam computed tomography（CBCT） images from 80 Chinese subjects and by SimPlant 11.04.The dimensions of the NPC,the thickness and profile of the labial bone,the width and height of the interproximal bone,angle sella-nasion-subspinale（SNA） and angle upper central incisor-nasion,subspinale（U1-NA） were measured.The incisive foramen of the NPC was markedly wider than its nasal foramen.The dimension of its labial bone wall demonstrated an increasing width from the crestal to apical measurements.The labial bone at the maxillary anterior region was rather thin,especially at 3 mm below the cemento-enamel junction（CEJ） and the mid-root level;the profile of the labial bone was more curved at the central incisor,and the interproximal bone became wider and shorter posteriorly.There were significant relationships between maxillary protrusion and labial bone profile,tooth labiolingual inclination and labial bone thickness（P 〈 0.02）.To achieve optimal esthetic outcome of implant,bone augmentation is necessary at the maxillary anterior region.For immediate or early placement at the maxillary anterior region,the implant should be located palatally to reduce labial bone resorption and marginal recession;its apex should be angulated palatally to avoid labial perforation at the apical region.To protect the NPC,implants at the central incisor region should be placed away from NPC.
文摘目的:目前临床上关于上颌窦提升的同时是否使用植骨材料的观点尚未达成共识,仍存在争议。为此,文章对穿牙槽嵴顶上颌窦底提升术并同期植入种植体,使用和不使用骨移植材料的临床疗效进行对比分析。方法:通过计算机检索中国知网、万方、维普、CBM、EMbase、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆数据库中所有公开发表的国内外有关穿牙槽嵴顶上颌窦提升术后与使用骨移植材料有关的临床研究。最终由2位评价员按照Cochrane手册和NOS量表进行文献质量评价后,应用RevMan 5.3软件及Stata 15.1软件对最终符合纳入标准的研究数据进行Meta分析。结果:①最终共纳入11篇文献,有6篇为随机对照试验,剩余5篇为前瞻性队列研究,共包括994枚种植体,其中植骨组399枚,不植骨组595枚;②Meta分析结果显示:上颌窦内提升术同期植入种植体使用与不使用骨移植材料两者的术后种植体失败率(RR=0.57,95%CI:0.28-1.18,P=0.13)及种植体周围骨吸收量(SMD=0.03,95%CI:-0.23-0.29,P=0.80)差异均无显著性意义;不植骨组黏膜穿孔风险要低于植骨组(RR=0.33,95%CI:0.12-0.96,P=0.04);但是不植骨组日后上颌窦内新骨形成量明显低于植骨组(SMD=-0.89,95%CI:-1.08至-0.70,P<0.05)。结论:上颌窦内提升同期植入种植体植骨与不植骨均可以获得可预期效果,两组在种植体失败率、种植体周围骨吸收量方面两组无显著差异,植骨组可以获得更多的新骨量,但是植骨组黏膜穿孔率高于不植骨组。因此临床中选择上颌窦内提升同期植入种植体不使用骨移植材料具有更多优点,且安全性较高。但由于文章纳入的研究质量限制,尚有许多不足之处,期待未来能有更多具有高质量水平的随机对照试验,在多中心、大样本的分析下得出更可靠的结论。
