Dataset Information

Allograft and Collagen Membrane Augmentation Procedures Preserve the Bone Level around Implants after Immediate Placement and Restoration.

ABSTRACT: Background: Immediate implant placement and restoration (IPR), is a reliable treatment modality. Purpose: This historical prospective study evaluated the medium-term outcomes of hard tissue after IPR in the anterior maxilla with simultaneous hard tissue augmentation. Methods: Seventy-three patients treated with single-implant IPR in the anterior maxilla were followed for 1-8 years. Treatment involved, atraumatic extraction, immediate implant placement and abutment adaptation, followed by simultaneous augmentation with mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) particles to fill the gaps and restore the ridge. The surgical site was stabilized with a resorbable collagen membrane, followed by the connection of an acrylic provisional restoration. Results: All implants osseointegrated during the follow-up period (mean, 34 ± 22 months). Radiographic evaluation of the distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and crestal bone level (CBL) was of 0.86 ± 0.86 mm and 0.8 ± 0.84 mm mesially and distally, respectively. Splitting the results into up to 3 years and 3-8 years of follow-up data, the corresponding values were 0.90 ± 0.83 and 0.68 ± 0.88 for the mesial aspect and 0.99 ± 0.87and 0.74 ± 0.83 for the distal aspect, respectively. Mean peri-implant probing depth was 3.63 mm (SD ± 1.06) and 16 implants (22%) presented at least one bleeding pocket of ?5 mm (peri implant mucositis). Conclusions: The immediate replacement of a single maxillary tooth by implants combined with guided bone regeneration is a predictable treatment modality with favorable peri-implant bony response.

SUBMITTER: Kolerman R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7068471 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Allograft and Collagen Membrane Augmentation Procedures Preserve the Bone Level around Implants after Immediate Placement and Restoration.

Kolerman Roni R Qahaz Nayrouz N Barnea Eitan E Mijiritsky Eitan E Chaushu Liat L Chaushu Liat L Tal Haim H Nissan Joseph J

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200211 4

Background: Immediate implant placement and restoration (IPR), is a reliable treatment modality. Purpose: This historical prospective study evaluated the medium-term outcomes of hard tissue after IPR in the anterior maxilla with simultaneous hard tissue augmentation. Methods: Seventy-three patients treated with single-implant IPR in the anterior maxilla were followed for 1-8 years. Treatment involved, atraumatic extraction, immediate implant placement an ...[more]

PMID: 32053928

Similar Datasets

Project description:Proper horizontal and vertical thickness of the gingival connective tissue has been proven to be one of the success criteria in dental implant and reconstructive surgery. When thin tissue is found, gingiva augmentation methods can be used to increase the quality and volume of the tissue. Many methods have been described, among them pedicle soft-tissue flaps or autogenic tissue grafts. As an alternative to patients' own tissue, xenogenic materials can be used for grafting. The fundamental issue is to choose a material that will ensure the maximum therapeutic effect, while also minimizing the negative influence on the patient's health. The aim of this study was to compare gingival augmentation procedures using a palatal connective tissue graft (CTG) and an xenogenic soft-tissue substitute, Geistlich Mucograft (xenogeneic collagen matrix; CMX), and assess whether the timing of the graft surgery influences the clinical outcomes. The original study was a randomized control trial with a total of 75 implants placed. The patients received the soft-tissue thickening 3 months before the implant placement or 3 months after the implant placement (depending on the group). A connective tissue graft (CTG) or Geistlich Mucograft were used (depending on the group). For both the CTG and Geistlich Mucograft, better clinical outcomes were observed for maintaining the alveolar bone level and the thickness of the attached gingiva compared to the control group with no gingival augmentation. The Geistlich Mucograft showed good clinical performance in comparison to the control. Soft-tissue augmentation with the CTG before the implant placement was found to be most efficient method in terms of a stable increase of the tissue thickness since, throughout the entire observation period, the greatest increase of 1.035 mm (SD = 0.73 mm) in thickness was observed. Statistically important differences in the tissue thickness baseline compared after 5 years were observed for groups G1 vs. G2b (no augmentation vs. CTG before), G1 vs. G3b (no augmentation vs. CTG after) and for groups G2b vs. G3a (CTG before vs. CMX after).

Project description:ObjectiveThe clinical benefits of simultaneous implant placement and soft tissue augmentation using different treatment modalities are unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of simultaneous soft tissue augmentation using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) around immediate or delayed dental implant placement with other treatment modalities on the peri-implant tissue health and esthetic.MethodsUp to May 2021, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized control trials with follow-up >3 months, evaluating simultaneous implant placement (immediate or delayed) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG compared with other treatment modalities were included. The predictor variables were SCTG versus no augmentation with/without guided bone regeneration (GBR) or other augmentation techniques (Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). The outcome variables were buccal tissue thickness (BTT), mid-buccal gingival level (MGL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic scores (PES). Cumulative mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.ResultsTwelve studies were included. SCTG along with immediate implant placement (IIP) or delayed implant placement (DIP) showed a statistically significant improvement in BTT (Fixed; MD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51; 0.97), MGL (Fixed; MD, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21; 0.80), PES (Fixed; MD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29; 1.29), and less MBL (Fixed; MD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14; -0.08) compared to no graft (P<0.05). A statistically insignificant differences in BTT (Random; MD, 0.62; 95% CI, -0.41; 1.65), MGL (Fixed; MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.23; 0.11), MBL (Fixed; MD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.05; 0.77) and PES (Fixed; MD, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.10; 0.67) was observed when SCTG along with DIP was compared with no augmentation plus GBR. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed when comparing SCTG along with DIP with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) concerning BTT (MD:0.71, P = 0.18) and KMW (MD: 0.6, P = 0.19).ConclusionThere is a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations on whether simultaneous dental implant placement (IIP or DIP) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG is superior to no augmentation or is comparable to the other tissue augmentation materials in improving the quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues. Therefore, further, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and long follow-up times are still needed.

Dataset Information

Allograft and Collagen Membrane Augmentation Procedures Preserve the Bone Level around Implants after Immediate Placement and Restoration.

Publications

Allograft and Collagen Membrane Augmentation Procedures Preserve the Bone Level around Implants after Immediate Placement and Restoration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets