| Objectives The quantitative measurement of the thickness of the implant in different periods using ultrasound was applied to analyze the influence factors such as PRF, implant position and implant thickness on the survival rate of the implants.Methods 1 All the cases with plastic surgery, autologous fat particles or autologous fat particles composite PRF injection filling the forehead were collected from October 2014 to October 2015 in the Affiliated Hospital of North China University of science and technology. The collected cases were divided into A and B two groups according to the injection, group A was injected with autologous fat granules alone, and the group B was filled with autologous fat granules combined with PRF injection. According to the filling location, group A and B were divided into A1, A2, A3 and B1, B2, B3 subgroups,respectively. Group A1 was for the simple autogenous fat particle filled forehead, group A2 was for the simple autogenous fat particle filled temporal, group A3 was for the simple autogenous fat particle filled cheek. Similarly, B1, B2, and B3 groups were autologous fat granules combined with PRF filling the frontal, temporal, buccal ministry, respectively.According to the implant thickness, group A and B were divided into group A h, A b and B h and B b, respectively. Group A h was for implantation of autogenous fat particle thickness more than 0.70 cm, group A b was for the implantation of autologous fat granules thickness less than 0.70 cm. Group B h was for the implantation of autologous fat granules combined with PRF thickness equal or greater than 0.70 cm, and group B b was for the implantation of autologous fat granules combined with PRF thickness less than 0.70 cm. 2 Photographs and ultrasonic inspection were taken to measure the soft tissue thickness and observe the changes of soft tissue thickness and understand the survival via the internal echo in in preoperative, postoperative immediately, postoperative 7d, postoperative 1mon,postoperative 3mon, postoperative 6mon, respectively. After the operation, the survival rate of the implants was =(the thickness of the soft tissue was measured at each postoperation) /(the soft tissue thickness was measured immediately after the operation- the thickness of the soft tissue was measured before operation). 3 All the data was analyses using SPSS19.0 software: independent samples t test was analysis the comparison of the implant survival rate in different time period within two groups, A b and A h, B b and B h,respectively. Comparison of the implant survival rate in different time period among A1,A2,, A3 three group, and B1, B2, B3 three groups was analysed with the X2 test. A single factor analysis of variance LSD two two comparison was analysed for the the survival rate of the difference among A1, A2, A3 groups and B1, B2, B3 groups respectively. Paired samples t test was analysed for the implant survival rate of the difference between group A and B after the operation of 3mon and 6mon.Results 1 There were significant difference between group A and B for the survival rate of postoperative, 1mon(t=-11.390, P = 0.000), 3mon(t=-7.715, P= 0.000), 6mon(t=-10.622, P = 0.000), P value was less than 0.05; the difference is statistically significant for the postoperative ultrasonic liquefied stove situation x2=4.728, P = 0.030, P value less than0.05, also. 2 Among group A1, A2, and A3 analysis that postoperative 1mon implant survival rate in group A2 and A1 group, group A2 and A3 group, P values were less than0.05; similarly, postoperative 6mon implant survival rate in group A2 and A1 group, group A2 and A3 group, P values were less than 0.05, the difference is statistically significant.There were no significant difference among group A1, A2, and A3 on postoperative 7d, and postoperative 3mon implantation in the survival rate; and statistical significance among the three groups, B1, B2, B3 among the three groups after operation in different periods implant survival rate had no significant difference too. 3 A b and A h two groups of graft in the survival rate of postoperative 1mon(t=2.578, P = 0.015), 3mon(t=3.329, P = 0.002),6mon(t=2.363, P = 0.026), P value was less than 0.05, the difference was statistically significant. B b, B h two groups of graft in the survival rate of postoperative 1mon(t=2.873,P= 0.008), 3mon(t=3.310, P= 0.003), 6mon(t=2.274, P= 0.031), P value was less than0.05, the difference was statistically significant. 4 The survival rate of group A in postoperative 3mon and 6mon was compared, t=6.240, P=0.000, P value was less than0.05, the difference was statistically significant. The survival rate of group B in postoperative 3mon and 6mon was compared, the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusions 1 The survival rate of autologous fat particles composite PRF transplantation was higher than that of autologous fat granules transplantation, the probability of liquefaction after operation and the probability of the two operation were lower than that of the autologous fat granules transplantation. The volume of autologous fat particles composite PRF transplantation reached a steady state at 3 months after the operation. 2 The effect of implant site on the survival rate of autologous fat particles composite PRF transplantation was not obvious, while the effect of implant site on the survival rate of autologous fat particles transplantation was obvious. 3 The thickness of implant has influence on the survival rate of the implant. The implant is too thick to reduce the survival rate of the implant. 4 Ultrasound can be used as a reliable tool to monitor the dynamic changes of implants, it is worthy of clinical popularization and application. |
PDF Full Text Request