口腔医学研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 129-133.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.02.008

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于体素的拟合测量比较CGF凝胶与CGF提取液进行牙槽嵴位点保存的疗效

戴嘉秀1, 刘晓慧1, 刘榆1, 许舒宇1,2*   

  1. 1.同济大学口腔医学院 上海 200000;
    2.同济大学附属口腔医院种植科 上海 200072
  • 收稿日期:2021-06-30 出版日期:2022-02-28 发布日期:2022-02-23
  • 通讯作者: *许舒宇,E-mail:shuyu_xu0809@163.com
  • 作者简介:戴嘉秀(2002~ ),女,江西吉安人,本科在读,研究方向:口腔医学。
  • 基金资助:
    上海市卫生健康委员会青年基金(编号:20204Y0096);同济大学“中央高校基本科研业务费”专项资金项目(编号:22120180626)

Efficacy Comparison of CGF Gel and CGF Extracting Solution in Alveolar Ridge Preservation through Voxel-based Superimposition of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images

DAI Jiaxiu1, LIU Xiaohui1, LIU Yu1, XU Shuyu1,2*   

  1. 1. School of Stomatology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200000, China;
    2. Department of Oral Implantology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200072, China
  • Received:2021-06-30 Online:2022-02-28 Published:2022-02-23

摘要: 目的: 比较浓缩生长因子(concentrate growth factors,CGF)凝胶与CGF提取液分别和低替代率成骨材料混合使用进行位点保存手术时对于牙槽骨的保存疗效。方法: 将18例患者随机分为两组。CGF凝胶组:CGF凝胶与脱蛋白小牛骨(deproteinized bovine bone mineral,DBBM)1∶1混合后、充填骨缺损;CGF提取液组:CGF提取液与DBBM混合后充填骨缺损。在术前、术后当日及术后6个月分别进行基于CBCT体素拟合测量分析。结果: 在CGF凝胶、CGF提取液两组间术后6个月与术后当日相比的近远中骨高度吸收量和颊舌向骨高度吸收量存在统计学差异,且表现为CGF凝胶组骨吸收量大于CGF提取液组;而近远中骨宽度吸收量和颊舌向骨宽度吸收量在两组间无统计学差异。结论: CGF凝胶与CGF提取液用于位点保存术,术后6个月时,CGF提取液组的成骨效果优于CGF凝胶组。

关键词: 位点保存, CBCT, 体素拟合, 浓缩生长因子

Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy of concentrated growth factor (CGF) gel and CGF extract combined with low replacement rate osteogenic materials for site preservation surgery. Methods: Eighteen patients were randomly divided into two groups. CGF gel group: CGF gel and DBBM were mixed at 1∶1 to fill the bone defect, and CGF extract solution group: the bone defect was filled with the mixture of CGF extract solution and DBBM. Voxel-based superimposition of cone beam computed tomography images were taken before operation, on the same day after operation, and 6 months after operation. Results: From postoperative day to six months after operation, there were significant differences in the mesiodistal height and buccal-lingual height between CGF gel group and CGF extract solution group, and the bone height resorption in CGF gel group was higher than that in CGF extract solution group, but there was no significant difference in mesiodistal width and buccal-lingual width between two groups. Conclusion: The osteogenic effect of CGF extract solution group is better than that of CGF gel group at 6 months after operation.

Key words: site preservation, CBCT, voxel-based superimposition, concentrated growth factor