简介:骨致密化是一种非拔牙技术,使用特殊设计的钻头来增加骨密度,同时延长截骨术,允许在截骨准备过程中通过压实自体移植来保存和凝聚骨,增加植入物周围的骨密度,提高机械稳定性。目的:本研究的目的是比较常规截骨术和骨致密化方案在植入物放置中的应用,并分析骨密度是否存在差异。材料和方法:定义研究变量,即,骨致密化技术,常规截骨技术,骨密度,性别,区域的位置,植入物尺寸,植入物尺寸,和植入物的稳定性。定义了资格和排除标准。制定了逐步的手术方案。外科医生和放射科医生进行了内部检查者校准。根据资格标准共选择15例患者,总共插入了41个植入物,20个通过常规截骨术植入,21个通过骨致密化植入。修复后一年进行锥形束计算机断层扫描,以估计骨密度。收集并记录数据,在分析变量的关联时,采用非参数检验。结果:骨密度值有统计学意义,骨致密化技术获得了更高的值,也就是说,骨钻孔技术的中值密度值为1020,中值密度值为732。技术和性别的骨密度之间的相关性的结果,主要植入物稳定性,植入物尺寸和位置面积无统计学意义.结论:在本研究的局限性内,传统截骨术和骨致密化方案之间的骨密度存在差异。在一年的研究期间,随着骨致密化,骨密度增加。
Introduction: Osseodensification is a non-extraction technique using specially designed drills to increase bone density while extending an osteotomy, allowing bone to be preserved and condensed by compacting autograft during osteotomy preparation, increasing bone density around implants, and improving mechanical stability. Aim: The objective of this study is to compare conventional osteotomy and osseodensification protocols in implant placement and analyze whether there are differences in bone density. Materials and Methods: Study variables were defined, namely, osseodensification technique, conventional osteotomy technique, bone density, sex, area of location, implant dimensions, implant dimensions, and implant stability. Eligibility and exclusion criteria were defined. A step-by-step surgical protocol was developed. The surgeon and radiologist underwent intra-examiner calibration. A total of 15 patients were selected according to the eligibility criteria, and a total of 41 implants were inserted, 20 implants by conventional osteotomy and 21 by osseodensification. A cone beam computed tomography was performed one year after prosthetic rehabilitation to estimate bone density. Data were collected and recorded, and in the analysis of the association of variables, non-parametric tests were applied. Results: Significant statistical results were found in bone density values, with higher values being obtained with the osseodensification technique, that is, median density values of 1020, and median density values of 732 for the bone drilling technique. The results of the correlation between bone density in both techniques and sex, primary implant stability, implant dimensions and location area were statistically non-significant. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, there are differences in bone density between conventional osteotomy and osseodensification protocols. Bone density is increased with osseodensification over a study period of one year.