[Review of clinical effects of disk-up sinus reamer(DSR)-based internal sinus floor elevation with implantation in 10 years].

PURPOSE: To analyze the bone remodeling around the implant 10 years after disk-up sinus reamer(DSR)-based internal sinus floor elevation with implantation and to investigate the influence of different factors on implant retention. METHODS: The clinical and imaging data of patients undergoing DSR-based sinus floor elevation with simultaneous implantation were collected from the Department of Dental Implantology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2008 to December 2011. Panoramic film and CBCT were used to measure the changes of bone mass around implant in different periods. Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests were used to analyze the effects of different factors on implant retention with SPSS 26.0 software package. RESULTS: The study included 98 patients with a total of 128 implants. During the follow-up of 0-168 months, 7 implants failed, and the remaining formed good osseointegration and functioned, with a 10-year cumulative retention rate of 94.53%. The height of bone formation was (0.29±0.15) mm at the top and (2.74±0.66) mm in the sinus of 75 implant sites with complete imaging data obtained ten years after surgery. Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests showed that 8 factors including initial bone height, elevated bone height, mucosal perforation, implant length, implant torsion, diabetes, smoking and periodontitis had significant effects on implant retention. CONCLUSIONS: The DSR-based internal sinus floor elevation with implantation is a reliable and stable bone augmentation operation for vertical bone defect in maxillary posterior region, with a 10-year cumulative retention rate of no less than 94%. Initial bone height, elevated bone height, mucosal perforation, implant length, implant torsion, diabetes, smoking and periodontitis are the important factors affecting the long-term retention rate of implants.

Accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system versus fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery template in edentulous jaw implantation: A preliminary clinical study.

AIMS: To compare the accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system with that of fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) template in edentulous implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients with edentulous were recruited and divided into two groups: the Yake robotic system group (experimental) (n = 5) and the CAIS group (control) (n = 8). Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately, and the 3-dimensional positions of implants were obtained and compared with that in the preoperative design. The comparison showed platform, apical, depth, and angular deviations. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 84 implants (36 in the robotic group and 48 in the CAIS group) were placed. The mean deviation at the implant platform, apex, depth, and angle in the CAIS group was 1.37 ± 0.72 mm, 1.28 ± 0.68 mm, 0.88 ± 0.47 mm, and 3.47 ± 2.02°, respectively. However, the mean deviation at the implant platform, apex, depth, and angle in the robotic group was 0.65 ± 0.25 mm, 0.65 ± 0.22 mm, 0.49 ± 0.24 mm, and 1.43 ± 1.18°, respectively. Significant differences in the four types of deviation (p < 0.05) between the two groups were observed. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of robotic system in edentulous implant placement was superior to that of the CAIS template, suggesting that robotic system is more accurate, safe, and flexible, can be considered a promising treatment in clinical practice.

Safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injective treatments for ankle osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library until May 2022. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included with the assessment of the risk of bias. We recorded the participant's age, gender, type of PRP, injection volume, the kit used, and activating agent. We subsequently assessed the short-term and long-term efficacy of PRP using the functional scores and visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: We included four studies with a total of 127 patients, with a mean age of 56.1 years. 47.2% were male (60/127), according to eligibility criteria. There were three cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, and no study reported severe adverse events. All included studies used the Leukocyte-poor PRP. Short-term follow-up results suggested significant improvement of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score in the PRP injection group compared to the control group (n = 87 patients; MD: 6.94 [95% CI: 3.59, 10.29]; P < 0.01). Consistently, there was a statistical difference in AOFAS score between PRP injection and control groups in the final follow-up (≥ 6 months) (n = 87 patients; MD: 9.63 [95% CI: 6.31, 12.94]; P < 0.01). Furthermore, we found a significant reduction in VAS scores in the PRP groups at both the short-term follow-up (n = 59 patients; MD, - 1.90 [95% CI, - 2.54, - 1.26]; P < 0.01) and the ≥ six months follow-up (n = 79 patients; MD, - 3.07 [95% CI, - 5.08, - 1.05]; P < 0.01). The improvement of AOFAS and VAS scores at ≥ six months follow-up reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Nevertheless, the treatment effect of AOFAS and VAS scores offered by PRP at short-term follow-up did not exceed the MCID. Substantial heterogeneity was reported at the ≥ six months follow-up in VAS scores (I2: 93%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports the safety of PRP intra-articular injection for ankle OA. The improvements of AOFAS and VAS scores in the PRP group at short-term follow-up do not exceed the MCID to be clinically significant. PRP injection provides significant improvement of AOFAS score and reduced pain at ≥ six months follow-up. The efficacy of PRP should be interpreted with caution regarding the high heterogeneity and the scarcity of available literature, which urges large-scale RCTs with longer follow-up to confirm the potential efficacy of PRP injection for ankle OA.