兩種不同骨替代材料在位點保存術的臨床效果

Clinical study of two different grafting materials in alveolar ridge preservation

10.12408/J.issn2223-4462.2024.01.002

鄒德守(TSOU Teh Shou)；張詠(CHEONG Weng)；劉琴(LIU Qin)

骨替代材料 ； 位點保存術 ； 口腔種植 ； Grafting material ； Alveolar ridge preservation ； Dental implant

鏡湖醫學

24卷1期（2024 / 06 / 01）

8 - 10+26

繁體中文;英文

目的：研究Bio-Oss®Collagen和Bio-Oss®骨粉應用於拔牙後位點保存術在骨引導再生的臨床效果。方法：選取2020年8月～2022年12月於澳門鏡湖醫院口腔科就診需行拔牙術並同期位點保存術患者20例，隨機分為Bio-Oss®Collagen組和Bio-Oss®骨粉組，每組10例。所有患者拔牙後分别填入Bio-Oss®Collagen或Bio-Oss®骨粉，術後6個月覆診，測量牙槽骨垂直向及水平向骨量，並評價位點保存的臨床效果。結果：術後10～14天，2組創口均癒合良好，與術後即刻測量結果相比，Bio-Oss®Collagen組牙槽骨高度增加0.121±0.98mm（t=-0.389, P>0.05），牙槽骨寛度減少-0.894±2.71mm（t=1.044, P>0.05），差異無統計學意義；Bio-Oss®骨粉組牙槽骨高度減少-1.307±1.94mm（t=2.135, P>0.05），差異無統計學意義，牙槽骨寛度減少0.753±1.14mm（t=-2.088, P >0.05），差異無統計學意義；2組間牙槽骨高度、寬度的變化沒有統計學意義（P>0.05）。結論：Bio-Oss®Collagen和Bio-Oss®骨粉在位點保存術後6個月內均能獲得相似的效果。

Objective: To observe the effect of Bio-Oss®bone powder and Bio-Oss®Collagen on site preservation during implantology. Methods: From August 2020 to December 2022, 20 patients from the Department of Stomatology of Kiang Wu Hospital, Macau, who needed tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation were chosen. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the Bone powder group (n=10) and the Collagen group (n=10). The Bone powder group received Bio-Oss®for socket filling, while the Collagen group received Bio-Oss®Collagen. All patients underwent a wound healing evaluation two weeks after the surgery. After six months, we assessed the alveolar bone mass and treatment efficacy. Results: Two weeks after surgery, both groups showed good wound healing. The Bio-Oss® Collagen group exhibited a marginal increase in alveolar bone height of 0.121±0.98mm (t =-0.389, P >0.05) and a slight width decrease of -0.894±2.71mm(t =1.044, P >0.05), but there was no significant difference observed. The Bio-Oss® group, on the other hand, demonstrated a decrease in alveolar bone height of -1.307±1.94mm (t =2.135, P >0.05) and a width decrease of 0.753±1.14mm (t =-2.088, P >0.05). There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of the two materials for alveolar ridge preservation (P >0.05). Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the efficacy of site preservation between the two materials.