口腔医学 ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (10): 791-795.doi: 10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2026.10.011

• 基础与临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

骨致密化技术与传统骨凿法在上颌窦底内提升术同期种植中的临床效果分析

侯永福, 牛衎, 章亚冰, 何晓雪, 田田, 刘堃()   

  1. 合肥市口腔医院种植科, 安徽医科大学合肥口腔临床学院, 安徽合肥 (230000)
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-28 出版日期:2026-10-28 发布日期:2026-10-16
  • 通讯作者: 刘堃 E-mail:8273555@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    合肥市卫生健康应用医学研究项目(Hwk2022yb034);合肥市第六批名医工作室——刘堃口腔种植名医工作室(合卫人函〔2024〕160号)

Clinical comparison between osseodensification and conventional osteotome techniques in transalveolar sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implant placement

HOU Yongfu, NIU Kan, ZHANG Yabing, HE Xiaoxue, TIAN Tian, LIU Kun()   

  1. Department of Implantology,Hefei Stomatological Hospital, Hefei Stomatology Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230000, China
  • Received:2025-07-28 Online:2026-10-28 Published:2026-10-16

摘要:

目的 比较经牙槽嵴上颌窦底内提升术(transalveolar sinus floor elevation,TSFE)同期种植中骨致密化技术与传统骨凿法的临床效果。方法 纳入2021年2月至2024年2月于合肥市口腔医院行TSFE同期种植的60例患者(剩余牙槽骨高度为4~7 mm,共69枚种植体),随机分为骨致密化组(OD组,采用逆向旋转骨钻挤压提升)和骨凿组(OT组,采用骨凿敲击提升)。记录两组术中窦膜穿孔率、种植体留存率,测量植入扭矩(IT)值、术后即刻及6个月窦内骨增量高度(endo-sinus bone gain,ESBG),并评估术后第0、1、2、7天疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)。采用SPSS 26.0进行统计学分析,组间比较使用t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验(α=0.05)。结果 OD、OT组窦膜穿孔率分别为2.78%、6.06%;IT值分别为(33.33±4.79)N·cm和(29.39±6.47)N·cm,OD组显著高于OT组(P<0.05)。术后第0天VAS评分OD组显著低于OT组(P<0.05);术后第1、2、7天VAS评分两组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。OD、OT组术后即刻ESBG分别为(5.01±0.65) mm、(5.02±0.74) mm,术后6个月ESBG分别为(4.65±0.57) mm、(4.60±0.74) mm,ESBG组间差异均无统计学意义。术后6个月,仅骨凿组1例种植体发生脱落(留存率100% vs. 96.97%,P>0.05)。结论 骨致密化技术与传统骨凿法在TSFE同期种植中均能有效实现窦内骨增量,但骨致密化技术显著提高了种植体初期稳定性并降低患者术后即刻疼痛,更具临床优势。

关键词: 经牙槽嵴上颌窦底内提升术, 骨致密化技术, 种植体稳定性, 骨凿法

Abstract:

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of osseodensification (OD) and osteotome (OT) techniques in transalveolar sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement. Methods This study enrolled 60 patients (69 implants) undergoing TSFE with simultaneous implantation at Hefei Stomatological Hospital (February 2021 to February 2024). Their residual bone height (RBH) was 4-7 mm. Participants were randomly assigned to the OD group (reverse-rotation drilling for sinus elevation, n=30) or OT group (osteotome mallet technique, n=30). Outcome measurements included intraoperative sinus membrane perforation, implant survival rate, insertion torque (IT), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) at baseline and 6 months, and postoperative pain intensity (VAS scores on days 0, 1, 2, and 7). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). Results The sinus membrane perforation rates in the OD group and OT group were 2.78% and 6.06%, respectively. The IT values were (33.33±4.79) N·cm and (29.39±6.47) N·cm, with the OD group showing a significantly higher value than the OT group (P<0.05). On the 0th day after surgery, the VAS score of the OD group was significantly lower than that of the OT group (P<0.05); however, there were no statistically significant differences in VAS scores between the two groups on the 1st, 2nd, and 7th days after surgery (P>0.05). The immediate post-operative ESBG values of the OD group and OT group were (5.01±0.65) mm and (5.02±0.74) mm, respectively, and the ESBG values at 6 months post-operatively were (4.65±0.57) mm and (4.60±0.74) mm, respectively. No statistically significant differences in ESBG were observed between the two groups. At 6 months after surgery, only one implant in OT group fell off, resulting in implant survival rates of 100% (OD group) vs. 96.97% (OT group), with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusion While both techniques achieved comparable endo-sinus bone augmentation, OD provided superior primary implant stability and reduced immediate postoperative pain, demonstrating clinical advantages over conventional osteotome methods in TSFE with simultaneous implantation.

Key words: transalveolar sinus floor elevation(TSFE), osseodensification technique, implant stability, osteotome technique

中图分类号: