Dataset Information

Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.

ABSTRACT: To volumetrically compare peri-implant mid-facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft.Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (Tpre ) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T12 ). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between Tpre and T12 .Twenty-five patients in each group were available for analysis at T12 . Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was -0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and -0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non-significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid-facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and -0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups.The use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid-facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.

SUBMITTER: van Nimwegen WG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6099353 | biostudies-other | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.

van Nimwegen Wouter G WG Raghoebar Gerry M GM Zuiderveld Elise G EG Jung Ronald E RE Meijer Henny J A HJA Mühlemann Sven S

Clinical oral implants research 20180527 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To volumetrically compare peri-implant mid-facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received n ...[more]

PMID: 29806181

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:ObjectivesTo evaluate clinical, radiological performance of novel digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation to streamline in one-visit single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone.Material and methodsConsecutive patients requiring one single-implant in aesthetic zone of both jaws were treated between May and September 2017. Primary outcomes were implant and prosthetic success rates, surgical and prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), final pink aesthetic score (PES-f), and implant stability quotient (ISQ-f). Secondary outcomes were ISQ-0 and PES-0 at implant positioning and PES-p at definitive prosthesis placement. Potential effect of jaw (maxilla vs mandible), biotype (thin vs thick), type of incision (flap vs flapless), and implant site (healed vs. post-extractive) on the primary outcomes (MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f) was evaluated through a multivariable analysis.ResultsFifty-two implants were placed (follow-up 18.6, 15-20 months). One post-extractive implant failed. No other surgical, biological complications occurred, accounting for 98.10% cumulative success rate (CSR). No definitive prostheses failed. Mean MBL was -0.63 ± 0.25 mm (-1.69 to -0.06). PES-f was 12.34 ± 1.41 (9-14). ISQ-f was 78.1 ± 3.2 (70-84). Age had significantly negative effect on MBL and PES-f (p = .0058 and p = .0052). No other variables significantly affected primary outcomes.ConclusionsWithin study limitations, investigated digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation was reliable for single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone in one visit. No statistically significant difference was found for MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f, considering type of incision (flap vs. flapless), implant site (healed vs post-extractive), jaw (maxilla vs. mandible), and biotype (thick vs. thin). Live-tracked dynamic navigation may have contributed to improve operator clinical performance regardless of implant site characteristics. Further investigations are needed to confirm positive outcomes.

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

Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.

Publications

Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets