叶建青　江银华　占适龙　叶慧兰

浙江省丽水市人民医院口腔科，浙江丽水323000

不同方式上颌窦底提升同期种植修复的评估

叶建青江银华占适龙叶慧兰

浙江省丽水市人民医院口腔科，浙江丽水323000

目的评估两种上颌窦底提升后种植修复的临床效果。方法选择本院2010年3月～2013年3月收治的68例患者作为研究对象，随机均分为两组，分析经水压法和冲顶法上颌窦底提升同期种植修复的临床情况，包括上颌窦底提升的高度，患者的疼痛指数，骨吸收情况，种植体存留率，以及术中术后并发症情况。结果采用冲顶法和水压法提升上颌窦底高度的差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；水压法提升上颌窦底同期种植修复后，患者的疼痛指数低于冲顶法，差异有高度统计学意义（P＜0.01）；水压法的骨吸收高度小于冲顶法，差异有高度统计学意义（P＜0.01）；两种术式术后修复不同时间的存留率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；两种方法术中和术后均无并发症发生。结论采用水压法进行上颌窦底提升同期种植修复，患者疼痛感低、骨吸收量小，相比冲顶法更为有效。

［Abstract］Objective To evaluate the clinical results of implant after two kinds of maxillary sinus augmentation. Methods 68 cases of patients in our hospital from March 2010 to March 2013 were researched.Rush top method and water pressure method of maxillary sinus augmentation implants of clinical conditions were analyzed，such as the height of the maxillary sinus floor elevation，the patient's pain index，bone resorption，implant retention rate，and postoperative complications.Results The difference of hoisting height by rush top method and water pressure method was not statistically significant（P＞0.05）；The patient's pain index by water pressure method was better than that of rush top method，the difference was statistically significant（P＜0.01）；The bone resorption by water pressure method was lower than that of rush top method，the difference was statistically significant（P＜0.01）；The difference of different repair time of postoperative survival rate was not statistically significant（P＞0.05）；There were no complications in the two methods. Conclusion The water pressure method for lifting the maxillary sinus floor and repairing at the same period，patients feel low pain，bone absorption is small.It is more effective to compare with the rush top method.

［Key words］Maxillary sinus augmentation；Rush top method；Water pressure method；Implant；Assessment

上颌后牙缺失会引起牙槽骨萎缩、上颌窦气腔化等问题，上颌窦的底壁会下降到缺失牙原来的牙根位置，造成缺牙区剩余牙槽骨高度（residual bone height，RBH）不足，若直接种植，种植体易穿破上颌窦黏膜，从而引发上颌窦炎，导致种植失败［1，2］。因此，临床采用上颌窦底提升技术来解决上颌窦底垂直骨量不足的问题［3］，主要包括上颌窦外侧壁开窗术式和上颌窦内提升术。……